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

New Aircraft in the Offing?

GGboy

Member
Inactive
Reaction score
0
Points
210
From today's National Post:

National Post
Wednesday, August 31, 2005
By Chris Wattie
National Post
The Canadian air force wants to spend $6-billion on a fleet of more than 50 new transport and search-and-rescue aircraft under a proposal to be presented to Cabinet this month, the National Post has learned.
Senior defence sources said the air force is putting the finishing touches on an "omnibus" plan to solve the looming crisis in its air transport system.
The plan would allow the Canadian Forces to buy badly needed replacements for its Hercules cargo planes, long overdue new search-and-rescue aircraft and a fleet of new heavy-lift helicopters in one fell swoop.
"There are big air mobility issues to deal with and there's a certain urgency to this," said one senior official familiar with the plan. "If it's not addressed soon, it will become critical."
The plan has not yet been approved by Bill Graham, the Defence Minister.
But the source, speaking on condition of anonymity, said, "The department is making this a priority for the fall ... this is something we're going to look at putting to government as soon as possible."
The proposal now on the table would see the Department of National Defence buying between 15 and 20 of the latest model of Lockheed Martin's long-serving Hercules transport plane, the C-130J, to replace its fleet of model E Hercules, which are more than 40 years old.
It also includes 15 new fixed-wing search-and-rescue planes -- likely the Italian-made C-27J Spartan -- long overdue replacements for six CC-115 Buffalo aircraft now in service in British Columbia.
The air force also wants to buy 20 CH-47 Chinooks -- twin-rotor helicopters capable of carrying as many as 44 soldiers or more than 13 tonnes of cargo, vehicles or heavy weapons in overseas theatres such as Afghanistan.
The bill for the new aircraft and the necessary support and servicing contracts would come in at more than $6-billion, at least some of which will have to be new money allocated by Cabinet to the defence budget, the sources said.
The acquisition of the new planes would be spread over the next five to 10 years, but the air force has already said it needs to replace the Buffalos and the oldest of its Hercules planes by 2010 at the latest.
The plan does not directly address the Canadian Forces' need for strategic airlift -- long-distance, heavy-lift cargo planes capable of flying hundreds of tonnes of equipment or supplies around the globe.
"The piece that's missing ... is strategic airlift," said one senior air force officer. "That's going to be addressed somehow, but whether it's buying new aircraft or leasing or joining some sort of strategic lift 'pool' has not been decided."
The Canadian Forces air transport fleet has been struggling for years with ageing aircraft and mounting maintenance costs.
Air force officials said the Hercules have already begun hitting the end of their effective lifespans -- five years before the military expected to begin replacing its workhorse cargo aircraft.
Lieutenant-Colonel Bruce Cooke, the program and engineering manager for the Hercules fleet, said two of the oldest planes have reached their "ultimate economic lifespan" -- the point at which it costs more to maintain them than it would to buy a new aircraft.
"We're almost at a point now where that is a real option," Lt.-Col. Cooke said. "The amount of money we're putting into the old airframes ironically could be very, very similar in costs to going out and buying a new airframe."
The military's ailing air transport system was dealt another blow this month after a safety bulletin from Lockheed-Martin, the U.S.-based manufacturer of the Hercules, recommended expensive and time-consuming inspections for potentially disastrous cracks in the aircraft's wings.
Two of the air force's oldest Hercules are already over the limit of 50,000 flying hours, the point at which Lockheed-Martin recommends grounding the aircraft for extensive testing, and four more are quickly approaching that level.
That will mean 18 of the air force's 32 CC-130 Hercules aircraft will have to be taken out of active duty over the next few months, Lt.-Col. Cooke said.
Although the air force has already done "almost 65%" of the recommended inspections of its Hercules' wings, he said the rest of the inspections could take aircraft out of service for weeks and eat up scarce funds.
"We honestly don't know yet how much it will cost.... It could be in the hundreds of thousands."
The problem of cracked wings was first discovered two years ago in the Canadian Hercules fleet, which is among the oldest in the world.
"The bottom line is that we are now at the point where we either invest significant funds to rebuild the aircraft or we take the same amount and replace the bird with another, new aircraft," Lt.-Col. Cooke said.
 
30 x C27Js @25 MUSD  =  750 MUSD
20 x CH47s @30 MUSD =  600 MUSD
Total                          = 1350 MUSD

1 MCAD @ 0.84 MUSD

1350 MUSD x 0.84      = 1600 MCAD

Project Cost                = 6000 MCAD

Duey where are you?

You explained the training and maintenance costs on the CH-47s once before but this mark-up appears interesting.  Could you go over it again for us that are slow on the uptake?

Cheers.
 
Kirkhill: the C130's ... must be more than 25MUSD each. Are you sure thats not 125MUSD?
 
whiskey

http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRTypen/FRC-27J.htm

Costs (Kosten)
A fly-away price of 27,5 million US-Dollars was mentioned in mid-1999, a lot more than the 20 - 21 million US-Dollars at first envisaged in 1996. As the C-295 is around 30 per cent cheaper, a price-cutting exercise was planned.
In 2000, development costs were said to be in the region of 40 million US-Dollars, to be funded by the companies.

I am looking for a more current reference on the C27J.  I have seen other reports recently (ie the last couple of years) that suggest the order of magnitude costs are good.

By the way the C130J is roughly twice the cost of the C27J.  Curiously when looking at the C27/C130/C17/747ERF there is an astonishing congruence between Capital Cost and Ton-mile lifting capacity.

http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRTypen/FRC-130J.htm
Costs (Kosten)
With spares and support, the C-130J sells at around 55 million US-Dollars (Australia 1995).
In December 2000, a dozen aircraft for the US services in a mix of variants sold at 734 million US-Dollars, i.e. 61 million US-Dollars per plane.
Lockheed Martin in April 1999 claimed a cost per flight hour of 1300 US-Dollars compared with 1900 US-Dollars for the older C-130H and 3900 US-Dollars for the C-17.

 
Here's another more current reference. 
Bulgaria, Greece and Italy are current buyers. Trying to figure out actual aircraft prices from those countries, given the interactions of aid etc, makes the process more obscure than it is in Canada.

C-27J Spartan Enjoying International Success
Posted 06-Apr-2005 08:19
Related stories: Transport & Utility
Also on this day: 06-Apr-2005 »

C-27J SpartanBulgaria will purchase 8 C-27J Spartan tactical transport aircraft. This news follows decisions by a number of countries to purchase the C-27J, often described as a smaller and shorter-range cousin to the C-130 Hercules aircraft that shares extensive commonality with its larger sibling (the Bulgarian news article is in error concerning the aircraft's cargo capacity; it is significantly smaller than the C-130, but the C-27J can accommodate Hercules load pallets). Though no prices were given, fly-away estimates for the C-27J range from USD $20-27.5 million each. In addition, Canada is slated to buy 15 C-27Js, Greece 12, Portugal 10, and the Czech Republic 4. Other countries are also reportedly evaluating the aircraft.

The primary roles of the C-27J are cargo transport, troop transport and material and paratroop air drop. Other missions include maritime patrol, tactical operations, medical evacuation, ground refuelling, fire-fighting and aerial spraying. It is made by Lockheed Martin Alenia Tactical Transport Systems (LMATTS), a joint venture company set up by Lockheed Martin and Finmeccanica subsidiary Alenia Aeronautica.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2005/04/c27j-spartan-enjoying-international-success/index.php#orison_mc
 
The office of the defense secretary recently estimated that the CH-47F unit cost will be about $22 million. The Chinook is now expected to remain in the Army inventory until at least 2033, 71 years after the CH-47 first entered service.
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2002/Jul/Upgraded_Chinook.htm
That was a 2002 estimate.

This site offers a unit cost for the CH-47F of 32 MUSD  in 2005
http://www.deagel.com/pandora/?p=pm00105003
 
Kirkhill said:
Duey where are you?

I would assume that the 6 billion price tag includes O&M, as Duey highlighted in his post on the 'hook.

Don't you times the number by 3 to get the ballpark figure?

1600 MCAD x 3 = 4800MCAD

Put it together and you get 6.4 billion.  Does that work?
 
You are right about the multiplication Infanteer and maybe 3 is the number but as I remembered it, Capital x 3 = Total Cost including Maintenance and Training.  Operations (I believe) are separately priced (crew and gas).
 
GGboy said:
The proposal now on the table would see the Department of National Defence buying between 15 and 20 of the latest model of Lockheed Martin's long-serving Hercules transport plane, the C-130J, to replace its fleet of model E Hercules, which are more than 40 years old.
It also includes 15 new fixed-wing search-and-rescue planes -- likely the Italian-made C-27J Spartan -- long overdue replacements for six CC-115 Buffalo aircraft now in service in British Columbia.
The air force also wants to buy 20 CH-47 Chinooks -- twin-rotor helicopters capable of carrying as many as 44 soldiers or more than 13 tonnes of cargo, vehicles or heavy weapons in overseas theatres such as Afghanistan.

Unless I am misreading something, the plan is for 15-20 C130J, 15 C27 and 20 CH47.

15 C130J @ 65 MUSD=  975MUSD
15 C27@ 30MUSD= 450MUSD
20 CH47@30MUSD=600MUSD

Total= 2025MUSD in capital price. Thats seems like a lot, but over the acquisition cycle, it amounts to about $500 MCD per year over 10 years with inflation at 3 percent [excluding life cycle costs].

Am I incorporating a cost that you have excluded?

 
Sorry all:

Comes from reading the paper before the Caffeine kicks in completely. I misread the article.  I thought they were replacing the E's with C27s not J's.

Whiskey's got it righter - even if the numbers have "climbed" a bit.

Then Infanteer/Dueys 3:1 works.

Panic over. :-[ :blotto:

 
Chinook G is on the way, not the F - I hereby volunteer for the first OTU down in the states :salute:
 
it is interesting tale so far. by the time the actually aircraft are ordered and on the ground, I would not be shocked that  costs arise another billion, they  never seem tog et anything to come in under budget.
Comparing the Griffon and the CH 47 not exactly  apples to apples. both are green helicopters I guess. I thought the Canadian Order for the Griffon was for 100 units, but they listed 86 in the story. Did we lose some?  CH 47 guess we could buy  back our old choppers from the dutch for less We need new equipment not used  or reused.
As for the buffalo replacement I would of liked to see a Canadian Plane maker in the running. But I guess none of our aircraft makers have a plane on the shelf for that  would suit the needs.  I did notice that  we are going for a bigger cargo plane but less troop lift. Buffalo  2727Kg or 41 troops. C-27J  5443kg or 34 troops.
Heavy  lift aircraft still a leasing issue as required.
Hercs need replacing now 50000 hour airframes are not good, oldest fleet in the world. that is not right but I guess they  fall under the seaking , tutor jet for Canada and the B52 Rules for the US Airforce fly  till they fall out of sky. At least the Americans put the B52 thru major upgrades and rebuilts.
 
Mover:  Not many good alternatives to J's out there just now AFAIK.

Former Horse Guard:  C27J can acually carry up to 68 combat troops if lightly equipped or about 40-50 Euro Paratroops or American Troops, or 34 American style paratroops.

Dutch CH-47 buy back? Their using theirs.

As for the 86 Griffons, not sure but I think that is roughly the number assigned to TAC (Army Co-op) roles.  The rest (-2? that have fallen out of the sky) were assigned to the Air Force for Base Rescue.

Cheers.
 
Airbus is developing a new airframe that is and will give the Herc a run for the money. 
http://www.airbusmilitary.com/handling.html

Lets get real with the Chinooks. I don't see us buying back ours from the Dutch. They are too old. I see us buying new or slightly used.

Griffons although a nice helicopter are being used in a role that they are not intended.
I am not holding my breath on any of it to come to fuition. In fact by the time I get to see any of these airframes come into service, I expect to be collecting my pension and pooping my depends.

 
the numbers I posted were from the photo and charts published in the news story.  i was looking at the pictures of the buffalo and the spartan and the spartan does look like a bigger aircraft so i was sort of confused when it stated  under load  5443KG  or 34 fully  equipped troops the buff has a laod of 2727 KG and 41 fully  equipped troops
so i do not know.
i hope they  buy something decent is all
 
FormerHorseGuard said:
the numbers I posted were from the photo and charts published in the news story.   i was looking at the pictures of the buffalo and the spartan and the spartan does look like a bigger aircraft so i was sort of confused when it stated   under load   5443KG   or 34 fully   equipped troops the buff has a laod of 2727 KG and 41 fully   equipped troops
so i do not know.
i hope they   buy something decent is all

Do the math, 41 troops weighing in at an average of 100 kg would equal 4100 kg, which is nearly 1400 kg overweight.
 
my  guess is it really  comes down to what  is considered fully  equipped troops. web grear, weapons, bullets, not much else
i was stating facts off the news story.  i have been side the buffalo aircraft at the pant where they  were built in Toronto and at a couple airshows, but I do think it would be a tight fit for 41 men with or without equipment.
guess it would also depend how the cargo was loaded, and what  cargo was madeup of,  bulky  equipment could fill the cargo area long before it was maxed out, and small heavy  equipment could max out the eight limits and have lots of cargo space.

but since these aircraft will be in SAR roles cargo space is going have less then 20 soldiers and equipment. life rafts for over water resue, and land grear for over land rescues. tents and medical gear. so they  should be fine. 

so anyone want to start a betting pool as to when these new dreams come into service, if they come into service and if they  will be even close tot he numbers talked about or required or how much over budget they  will be?
 
Kirkhill said:
30 x C27Js @25 MUSD   =    750 MUSD
20 x CH47s @30 MUSD =    600 MUSD
Total                           = 1350 MUSD

1 MCAD @ 0.84 MUSD

1350 MUSD x 0.84        = 1600 MCAD

Project Cost                 = 6000 MCAD

Duey where are you?

You explained the training and maintenance costs on the CH-47s once before but this mark-up appears interesting.   Could you go over it again for us that are slow on the uptake?

Cheers.

Sorry for not getting here sooner, guys...I was digging/moving a tree in the back yard...nothing better to do with embarkation leave than move trees...  ;D


anyhow...my quick run at the numbers would be ~45M CAD for a CH-47F cargo variant and $55M CAD for an MH-47G SOF/msn spec model...let's say I'm dreaming in technicolour and we get 20 G's since the refuelling boom would make transit up North for a MAJAID very responsive (and a bunch of other missions that we could discuss over a beer), then multiply the airframes x 3 (an amazinginly accurate SWAG for total lifecycle costs and we would have:

20 x 55M = $1.1B CAD for up front costs (as an example the CH146 cast ~$0.95B), and

another $2.2B over 30 years = $73M/year for in-service support.

Overall, these figures are consistent with what I would expect the department is looking at...re: CH146, I wouldn't be surpized to see about 35-40 kept in the Tac Avn role (no clue about "CSS" in YOD, YBG, YGB) with likely some kind of "power and performance" upgrades (likely not a fully "UH-1Y" upgrade) an improved EO/IR sensor and some lighterweight precision munitions (laser seeking CRV-7's)


I'm cautiously optimistic that some of this might actually happen.  Personally, I'm glad to see the TAL/TPT guys getting looked after as well, although I'm still not convinced the 130-J is the best way to do it.  The C-27J is not a bad hummer for FWSAR...

Let's see how this one goes down...hopefully before the November election...  :-\


p.s.  This also smack of trial ballooning...although Chris Wattie is a relatively straight shooter and the stuff that seeps out of the MND's office is usually fairly accurate when it comes down to the short strokes...

Cheers,
Duey
 
Back
Top