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

RUMINT of Canada wanting more C-17's

I seem to recall that Boeing tried to drum up interest in a civilianized version, with no takers.  Ultimately, Boeing wants to operate at a profit; if there are no buyers, then they will not build the product.  Capitalism 101.
 
I seem to recall that the C5 has a lot to do with the shortened production run of the C17.  The generals justify running the re-build of the C5 AND buying more C17 so they cut the later.
 
likely, from Wiki

The U.S. Air Force has 71 C-5s in service as of February 2014 and plans to reduce the fleet to 52 "M" models by 2017

As it is appears Airbus will have the remaining market to itself, with just the C130J nibbling at it's heels
 
Spencer100 said:
Don't forget the new Embraer KC-390.  Much smaller but interesting Aircraft.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_KC-390
and the C-127 etc, the field of similar and smaller than C-130 is quite well served it seems. But only the A400 appears to be the only remaining possibility for bigger than a C130J. The question for many that might like further C-17's is the A400 big enough to make it worth having a mixed fleet. One option is for one country to sell it's C-17 to other countries and re-equip completely with A400's

NATO heavy lift squadron and Quatar might be potentials for such a swap
 
C-17 White Tails Down to Five
(Source: Forecast International; posted April 15, 2015)
The number of white tail C-17 aircraft being built by Boeing before closure of the production line later this year is now down to five. The Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) has decided to acquire two C-17s in a move that will bring the service’s C-17 fleet to eight aircraft.

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/162858/five-c_17-white-tails-left-after-production-closes.html

Personal Opinon - Canada should buy three of these to bring the fleet up to 8.  There is work for these aircraft and they are significant strategic assets diplomatically, militarily and domestically.  They are bargains.
 
Kirkhill said:
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/162858/five-c_17-white-tails-left-after-production-closes.html

Personal Opinon - Canada should buy three of these to bring the fleet up to 8.  There is work for these aircraft and they are significant strategic assets diplomatically, militarily and domestically.  They are bargains.

Where are the crews coming from?  Where is the funding for R&O?  Where is the funding for fuel?
 
dapaterson said:
Where are the crews coming from?  Where is the funding for R&O?  Where is the funding for fuel?

From anywhere that isn't working for a living.....
 
Kirkhill said:
From anywhere that isn't working for a living.....

To put people towards this, we would have to take people from somewhere else.

What would we give up in return?

Yes, I know, but those organizations will always protect themselves at the cost of operational effectiveness.
 
Loachman said:
To put people towards this, we would have to take people from somewhere else.

What would we give up in return?

Yes, I know, but those organizations will always protect themselves at the cost of operational effectiveness.

I believe this is the logic to which you refer.....

giphy.gif
 
dapaterson said:
Where are the crews coming from?

It would take a few years, but it's doable. After all we are managing to man 15 new Chinooks somehow without breaking the RCAF. Plus maybe it would finally justify getting a simulator in Trenton and maybe even starting up our own OTU.

>
dapaterson said:
Where is the funding for R&O?  Where is the funding for fuel?

Just like they said when the C-17s ran out of YFR the first and second time last year "Just keep flying, we'll find the money".
 
There are already plans for a sim in Trenton, and they have been under development for quite some time.

The Chinook positions are being taken from within the RCAF and from the Army; so where are the additional positions going to come from for more CC177 crews?

And the cost of YFR and maintenance and overhaul are significant.  The grownups in DND and outside the department ask the exact same questions, and refuse to permit acquisitions when the answer is "we'll figure it out later".
 
Flaming Nora.  The "Grown Ups".

The ones that haven't bought an FWSAR craft, that haven't bought a CCV, that haven't bought a  3 tonne truck, or a 10 tonne truck, or a wrecker, that haven't bought an AOPS or a BHS and are on the verge of reversing the TAPV acquisition.

DAP - I get that there are costs involved but time, effort, PYs and money are and have been wasted generating absolutely zero capability.  You have troops in the combat arms leaving because you can't keep them engaged with enough stimulating training.  In the meantime you have an asset that is in constant demand that would still be working every day if you had three times as many of them. 

And on the costs side, as you note yourself with the simulator, a lot of the costs of standing up the initial capability are now sunk costs and will support additional numbers, even if it means the support base is a bit skinnier.
 
The plans for a sim have been under development for a long, long time. It being on the government's procurement "wish list" doesn't mean we will be getting it anytime soon. Infrastructure projects like that are the first things to be put on hold when the cuts start, absolute best case scenario it's 5-10 years away right now, not to mention the technical issues (someone had another "great" idea regarding building the sim...won't go into details here).

dapaterson said:
The Chinook positions are being taken from within the RCAF and from the Army; so where are the additional positions going to come from for more CC177 crews?

The RCAF already trains more pilots each year than we can employ, plus the many ex-C-17 guys flying desks right now who no doubt would love to come back. The only real LIMFAC would be how many training slots the USAF would sell us (part of the reason we need a sim now).

dapaterson said:
The grownups in DND and outside the department ask the exact same questions, and refuse to permit acquisitions when the answer is "we'll figure it out later".

Funny, because that's how DND runs it's day to day operations. Plus it's not exactly a difficult problem to solve; you need some pilots, loadmasters and techs over the span of a few years, you just need to commit some resources to it and plan early.

Honestly, based on how we use the resources right now, the most efficient plan would be to paint half the J-models yellow and get a couple more C-17s.
 
Kirkhill said:
Flaming Nora.  The "Grown Ups".

The ones that haven't bought an FWSAR craft, that haven't bought a CCV, that haven't bought a  3 tonne truck, or a 10 tonne truck, or a wrecker, that haven't bought an AOPS or a BHS and are on the verge of reversing the TAPV acquisition.

While the military enjoys playing the "woe is me" game, there is more than adequate blame to go to the military and not to PWGSC, Treasury Board, or anyone else. Inevitably, trying to game the system results in delays.  Then the APS rolls around, new people come in with new ideas on how to game the system, further delays are realized... and the grownups (inside and outside DND) have even less trust in the products rolled out.

DAP - I get that there are costs involved but time, effort, PYs and money are and have been wasted generating absolutely zero capability.  You have troops in the combat arms leaving because you can't keep them engaged with enough stimulating training.  In the meantime you have an asset that is in constant demand that would still be working every day if you had three times as many of them. 

Again, it requires a continued commitment of resources to do so.  Don't say "we can stop things", say precisely what you will stop.  Notice that with the purchase of tail #5 there was no mention of an increase in YFR for the fleet; that's why the lifecycle costs are so low.  Much of the extra flyign being done this year is in support of operations, and therefore that YFR, and related increase in maintenance costs, is funded separately.  There is no more money in the baseline to bring on more CC177s and fly them.

And on the costs side, as you note yourself with the simulator, a lot of the costs of standing up the initial capability are now sunk costs and will support additional numbers, even if it means the support base is a bit skinnier.
Variable costs include the number of flight crews, training for that number of crews on a replacement basis, O&M to support those additional personnel, fuel, maintenance and overhaul for the fleets... again, what are you going to stop doing to fund this.  And don't engage in the perpetual armchair quarterback of "we'll find it somewhere" - I want you to say precisely what you will stop doing to fund this.  Of course, to do so you need to do a detailed assessment of what you want to do - how many flight hours you're planning etc.  That is, come up with a real plan.  Which, again, is what the grownups insist upon - not a whining five year old's plea of "But it's shiny and I want it!"
 
bradley247 said:
The plans for a sim have been under development for a long, long time. It being on the government's procurement "wish list" doesn't mean we will be getting it anytime soon. Infrastructure projects like that are the first things to be put on hold when the cuts start, absolute best case scenario it's 5-10 years away right now, not to mention the technical issues (someone had another "great" idea regarding building the sim...won't go into details here).

There is pretty good traction for the sim right now (together with Cormorant and Polaris sims as well - it was in the news this week)

The RCAF already trains more pilots each year than we can employ, plus the many ex-C-17 guys flying desks right now who no doubt would love to come back. The only real LIMFAC would be how many training slots the USAF would sell us (part of the reason we need a sim now).

Oddly enough, the RCAF claims to be short pilots. Plus, it's not a question of "Bob wants to fly again", it's rather a question of "We need more positions in the Sqns."  And with a hard cap on the size of the Reg F, if we expand the flying sqns, we need to take positions from somewhere else.

Funny, because that's how DND runs it's day to day operations. Plus it's not exactly a difficult problem to solve; you need some pilots, loadmasters and techs over the span of a few years, you just need to commit some resources to it and plan early.

Buying aircraft when we currently lack sufficient NP to support current fleets and are unwilling to divest to get to that level means we are eroding current and future readiness.  Unless we can commit more money to NP, we're just going to wind up with more hanger queens, or ships at sea with key systems down, or Army vehicles grounded waiting parts.  We're already in a hole, so we should probably stop digging.

Honestly, based on how we use the resources right now, the most efficient plan would be to paint half the J-models yellow and get a couple more C-17s.

That might be a viable COA, as it would let us retire the H-models and reinvest those positions and funding.  That assumes, of course, that the remaining tails aren't already spoken for.  (I've also heard LockMart may try to sell us more J-models for SAR - not quite the same solution, but close).
 
dapaterson said:
Oddly enough, the RCAF claims to be short pilots. Plus, it's not a question of "Bob wants to fly again", it's rather a question of "We need more positions in the Sqns."  And with a hard cap on the size of the Reg F, if we expand the flying sqns, we need to take positions from somewhere else.

We are short of experienced pilots, we are absolutely swimming with new ones. We are hiring a huge number of pilots each year and the training system is finally working properly, but the squadrons can't absorb them as fast as they are trained. Waiting 12+ months for an OTU is common these days. Plus the pilot trade is still technically undermanned, so finding around 20-30 more people/positions isn't going to break the RCAF.
 
Back
Top