• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Aircraft commander, has urged the UK Ministry of Defence to reconsider the early retirement of the C-130J Hercules fleet.

SeaKingTacco said:
That doctrine about relying on the Army for perimeter security might be due for an overhaul…
Click to expand...

It would be perfect for a recce tasking, with their armoured awesomeness ;)


The TAPV will replace the reconnaissance role currently carried out by the Coyote reconnaissance vehicles (LAV II), and the patrolling, liaison, and VIP transport roles formerly carried out by the Armoured Patrol Vehicle (RG-31). The TAPV will complement the Light Utility Vehicle Wheeled (G-Wagon).

Tactical armoured patrol vehicle - Canada.ca

The TAPV is a wheeled combat vehicle that can perform a variety of roles on the battlefield, such as reconnaissance and surveillance, security, command and control, cargo and armoured transport of personnel and equipment.
www.canada.ca www.canada.ca
 
Good2Golf said:
That interpretation notwithstanding, by the definition within the Defence Services Program, RPAS is a major capital project (MCP). Same as other single capability projects like MHLH, ACP-T, ACP-S, etc.

Ref: Remotely Piloted Aircraft System (RPAS) Project - Defence Capabilities Blueprint

/DSPpedant
Click to expand...
I know. My use of « program » was intentional, to highlight the complexity of those big projects that include several complex elements. We’re living some of that complexity with FFCP where there is more than one PMO for the same « project », and it is sometimes difficult to figure out who’s leading the overall effort.
 
SeaKingTacco said:
That doctrine about relying on the Army for perimeter security might be due for an overhaul…
Click to expand...
It has been applied operationally recently with little concerns. Not sure who would provide that security if it was left to the RCAF. It’s one thing to create an organization to provide said security (à la RAF Regiment), it’s another thing to fill it with people.

Different concept at the Wings obviously, but the WASF concept is deeply flawed….
 
SupersonicMax said:
I know. My use of « program » was intentional, to highlight the complexity of those big projects that include several complex elements. We’re living some of that complexity with FFCP where there is more than one PMO for the same « project », and it is sometimes difficult to figure out who’s leading the overall effort.
Click to expand...
When in doubt, blame GoGo.
 
SupersonicMax said:
I know. My use of « program » was intentional, to highlight the complexity of those big projects that include several complex elements. We’re living some of that complexity with FFCP where there is more than one PMO for the same « project », and it is sometimes difficult to figure out who’s leading the overall effort.
Click to expand...
It’s not magic.

ACP-S…new single type aircraft, new maint system, new logistics system, new pers trg, new infrastructure…project.

MHLH…new single type aircraft, new maint system, new logistics system, new pers trg, new infrastructure…project.

…these projects weren’t un-big, nor un-complex…still projects.

FFCP…the P literally stands for ‘Project’

I would buy the program argument if you described Canada’s (lowercase) fighter program, which includes both FFCP and CF-188 Fleet Supplement Project, but that includes both CF-35 and CF-188, so program (multiple projects contributing to an overall capability)…kind of like AFEC - Air Force Expeditionary Capability, a program comprised of numerous, discrete projects (infrastructure and operational capabilities) underneath the framework of an overarching program structure.

At the end of the day, perhaps it’s a tomayto-tomahto thing, but when one is working with TB/TBS, one should never *underestimate how much ‘words matter.’
 
Last edited:
SupersonicMax said:
It has been applied operationally recently with little concerns. Not sure who would provide that security if it was left to the RCAF. It’s one thing to create an organization to provide said security (à la RAF Regiment), it’s another thing to fill it with people.

Different concept at the Wings obviously, but the WASF concept is deeply flawed….
Click to expand...

How often would our RCAF folks be deployed to areas where the security situation was such that Infantry-type armed perimeter security was required for an airfield?

I have no idea of course...
 
daftandbarmy said:
It would be perfect for a recce tasking, with their armoured awesomeness ;)


The TAPV will replace the reconnaissance role currently carried out by the Coyote reconnaissance vehicles (LAV II), and the patrolling, liaison, and VIP transport roles formerly carried out by the Armoured Patrol Vehicle (RG-31). The TAPV will complement the Light Utility Vehicle Wheeled (G-Wagon).

Tactical armoured patrol vehicle - Canada.ca

The TAPV is a wheeled combat vehicle that can perform a variety of roles on the battlefield, such as reconnaissance and surveillance, security, command and control, cargo and armoured transport of personnel and equipment.
www.canada.ca www.canada.ca
Click to expand...

Back to the future

1690468092697.png

USAF XM706E2 Base Security Vehicle ca 1968.
Contemporary with the BRDM, the BTR60 and the Grizzly.
 
Colin Parkinson said:
Thank god we got the ones we did, I bet the Liberals grit their teeth and quietly say "Thank Christ Harper got these things". This was a capability we did not have before. The new cargo carriers will help reduce flight hours and some new C130J's would also help as well.
Click to expand...

I know it has been argued that we are better off with transport that can move us directly from point A to point B and not have to stop off at a hub in between but....

Our air transport fleet is already organized to deliver to hubs. The CC150 and the CC330 are both hub and spoke aircraft.

What would happen if the RCAF were to add half a dozen 747-8Fs to its fleet to complement the 9x CC330 just purchased? Save the CC-130 and CC-177 flight hours for the "last mile" delivery.

The older 747-400, which loaded through the side door carried the 12 tonne M-ATVs

www.jbcharleston.jb.mil

437 APS tackles first M-ATV load on 747

A team of Airmen with the 437th Aerial Port Squadron here loaded the first mine-resistant, ambush-protected all-terrain vehicles to be shipped aboard a Boeing 747-400 aircraft for delivery to
www.jbcharleston.jb.mil

It could only be easier with the 8Fs nose door.

1690469282450.png

The C17 has a max payload of 77,519 kg according to USAF while the 8F has a payload of 134,000 kg according to CargoLux. That equals something like 18 curb weight JLTVs.
 
Kirkhill said:
I know it has been argued that we are better off with transport that can move us directly from point A to point B and not have to stop off at a hub in between but....

Our air transport fleet is already organized to deliver to hubs. The CC150 and the CC330 are both hub and spoke aircraft.

What would happen if the RCAF were to add half a dozen 747-8Fs to its fleet to complement the 9x CC330 just purchased? Save the CC-130 and CC-177 flight hours for the "last mile" delivery.

The older 747-400, which loaded through the side door carried the 12 tonne M-ATVs

www.jbcharleston.jb.mil

437 APS tackles first M-ATV load on 747

A team of Airmen with the 437th Aerial Port Squadron here loaded the first mine-resistant, ambush-protected all-terrain vehicles to be shipped aboard a Boeing 747-400 aircraft for delivery to
www.jbcharleston.jb.mil

It could only be easier with the 8Fs nose door.

View attachment 79104

The C17 has a max payload of 77,519 kg according to USAF while the 8F has a payload of 134,000 kg according to CargoLux. That equals something like 18 curb weight JLTVs.
Click to expand...
I would have loved to have seen the KC 25 variant built cargo and fuel by the crap ton.
 
Good2Golf said:
It’s not magic.

ACP-S…new single type aircraft, new maint system, new logistics system, new pers trg, new infrastructure…project.

MHLH…new single type aircraft, new maint system, new logistics system, new pers trg, new infrastructure…project.

…these projects weren’t un-big, nor un-complex…still projects.

FFCP…the P literally stands for ‘Project’

I would buy the program argument if you described Canada’s (lowercase) fighter program, which includes both FFCP and CF-188 Fleet Supplement Project, but that includes both CF-35 and CF-188, so program (multiple projects contributing to an overall capability)…kind of like AFEC - Air Force Expeditionary Capability, a program comprised of numerous, discrete projects (infrastructure and operational capabilities) underneath the framework of an overarching program structure.

At the end of the day, perhaps it’s a tomayto-tomahto thing, but when one is working with TB/TBS, one should never *underestimate how much ‘words matter.’
Click to expand...
I am not saying it isn’t a project, I am saying perhaps it should be a program. It was a deliberate use of the wrong term…
 
daftandbarmy said:
How often would our RCAF folks be deployed to areas where the security situation was such that Infantry-type armed perimeter security was required for an airfield?

I have no idea of course...
Click to expand...
Of course the threat has a role to play but so have the capabilities that are deployed, which require safeguarding.
 
daftandbarmy said:
Or even better, more sneaky
Click to expand...
better for airfield defense

41572_rd.jpg
 
Kirkhill said:
Shyte.

Talk to IAI about conversions of old stock passengers?
Click to expand...
Why? To what end would adding another fleet of lifters, on top of the 9 new CC-330s improve things? Would it not just be better, if it is determined we are still short of Strat lift, to just buy more 330s?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top