Strategic Airlift - We need more than the Herc!

[a_majoor]

Kirkhill, the question really isn't what I want to fly (First class in a 767 with champagne and caviar), but if I want to fly at all.

Although Canada is a wealthy nation, the voters have constantly expressed a wish to spend that wealth on healthcare, and are willing to overlook the constant parade of scandals and misspending to get it. We in the CF are in the situation of a family on a tight budget: although the 2005 Freestar with GPS and DVD is just what we need; the green 95 Caravan in the back of the lot is what our budget can afford.

As for the issue of civvie contractors flying into a conflict zone, there are some work around solutions. The first is to fly to an airhead at the edge of the conflict zone. The CF still has a fleet of C-130 tactical transports, so the zoomies can "bulk break" the cargo and do the last leg in and out of theater. Another work around would be to demand a big bonus payment for crossing into the danger zone. A third way would be to write the "first use" contract in such a way that the contingency payments cover the cost of insurance coverage.

Private airlift would also have a certain amount of flexibility for the government. In the Tsunami disaster scenario, if the CF declines the first use option, then the service can be offered to other government agencies, then to the Red Cross or other humanitarian agencies. The IL 76 can also be used as a water bomber, unlikely as it sounds, so the service can be offered to the Provinces if things get out of hand during fire season.

Like all business plan proposals, this has to be affordable (start up), have low enough costs that they can be covered by ongoing revenues, and be flexible enough to take advantage of unexpected opportunities. As good as the C-17 is, or the A-400 sounds, the start up cost is so huge only governments (which do not have the profit motive) can afford to buy and operate fleets of these aircraft. Other aircraft in service are either very old, not yet in production, or unsuitable for one reason or another. For all its real and preceived faults, the IL 76 Candid IS available and IS affordable. Given the limited set of options, what other solutions are there?

 

[Wizard of OZ]

a_majoor

There is always an option the questions becomes what are we willing to settle for.  The Forces will push for the C17 or the A400 and the feds may push for the lease of aircraft.  The Solution well we have to wait and see what they settle on.  Maybe it will be the Airships they were taking about buying three years ago.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

I think both sealift and airlift have been intentionally omitted from budgets as it gives the Liberals an excuse to say "Oh gee, we'd love to help but we can't get there."

In essence by denying a capability, it allows them an out.




Matthew.  :blotto:

 

[Wizard of OZ]

You are starting to sound like a politican.  On this form that can be dangerous. :dontpanic:

But how true how true paint a back door out of the situation before it comes up.

 

[AftOf245]

It seems that the "Airlift Consortium" is a bunch of political insiders that want the government to finance a startup airline for them, and give them a guaranteed customer.  Has the government approached existing airlines to see what the interest is.

The only way a commercial operator would be able to operate a BC-17X, would be for the government to purchase the aircraft and sell hours back to the operator for an agreed upon hourly rate, with no fixed guarantees.  This would also relieve the pressure on the war risk insurance to cover the value of the Hull as the government would self insure, as they own the asset.

 

[JasonH]

The Antonov An-225 Mriya?

I know... it's huge and just going through the specs made me go  .  Just curious how much the price tag on these things are worth?  I know I'm out of my mind but hey, gotta throw idea's around right?

 

[Inch]

http://army.ca/forums/threads/25207.0.html

6 pages of discussion on that very subject.

 

[aesop081]

The Antonov An-225 Mriya?

I know... it's huge and just going through the specs made me go   .   Just curious how much the price tag on these things are worth?   I know I'm out of my mind but hey, gotta throw idea's around right?

Not to take away from th lengty thread abotu this stuff already but the an-225 isnt what we need as it is, well....too big.  Not to mention that there is only one in the world.

 

[aesop081]

Such as?

Just like your post in the "UP FROM THE RANKS" thread, this post adds nothing at all to the discussion. Thanks for coming out though.

Ok well. to keep myself out of hot water i will explain my thinking about the AN-225.  I have seen this thing in person. It is huge with a capital H.  It cannot land at too many airfields like the C-17 can.  They only ever built one.  It sat rotting at the antonov plant for years.  When they finaly saw the comercial potential of the aircraft, following the success of the AN-124, it took over a year to resurect it.  From the pamphlets i have from the antonov stand, they have no plans of manufacturing anymore of them.

 

[Inch]

That wasn't for you aesop. That was in response to sharp shooter's post which seems to have disappeared. I'm picking up what you're laying down.

 

[aesop081]

That wasn't for you aesop. That was in response to sharp shooter's post which seems to have disappeared. I'm picking up what you're laying down.

I was just being sarcastic.  I figured you would agree with me that the AN-225 isn't a solution.  Great comnercial potential but not what we need.

 

[Infanteer]

That wasn't for you aesop. That was in response to sharp shooter's post which seems to have disappeared. I'm picking up what you're laying down.

Sorry, that was my fault - just getting rid of the extraneous stuff....

 

[Gobsmacked]

It seems that the "Airlift Consortium" is a bunch of political insiders that want the government to finance a startup airline for them, and give them a guaranteed customer.  Has the government approached existing airlines to see what the interest is.

The only way a commercial operator would be able to operate a BC-17X, would be for the government to purchase the aircraft and sell hours back to the operator for an agreed upon hourly rate, with no fixed guarantees.  This would also relieve the pressure on the war risk insurance to cover the value of the Hull as the government would self insure, as they own the asset.

Jezz, whats with these north of 75* comments from an Ottawa insider?

Seems to me that "an Alberta consortium's" (as per the OpEd) is as far as is politically possible (deep in Conservative territory and in Ottawa terms - out in the boonies), in these days of forever ongoing Liberal misgovernance, from being a bunch of 'political insiders'.

As to 'wanting the government to finance a startup airline for them' - this seems highly unlikely.  :
While the Consortium will not release proprietary figures, they acknowleged the cost of a BC-17X falls somewhere just below midrange of the A400M-C17 differential.
A fair majority of the CF's incurred FSA project cost would be allocated towards Boeing for the 4 'militarized' BC-17Xs, plus any project costs, hanger modifications, Contingency [always factored into DND projects], etc.
The only DND dregs going directly to the Consortium would be a WTO approved 1/3 R&D fee (potentially repayable), and a '30 year guaranteed availability' fee (with penalties for non-availability).  And unlike the NATO airlift pool, there is no preset yearly hourly limit (minimum or maximum) for the provision of charter airlift support.
(Basically, whatever DND throws their way, if and when required, they will take [incl. being available within FSA SOR timelines, unlike foreign An-124s] - but they consider the market viable without minimum guaranteed GoC airlift.)

Just to be clear here, what I am trying to say is that the CF can acquire the 'C-17 equivalent' of 4 + 4 (with $Billions in additional LCC savings over 30 years) for the price of 5 aircraft, VS 6 Leased C-17s - for 15 years - at an overall cost of 10 C-17s (the CF's preference with minimal additional funding forthcoming as purchase is deferred down the road) with no paydown of value during lease term - even though their previous documents argued against this very route. 
Not only is the Lease-to-Purchase  Route Very PRICY (as the Brits have discovered - at end of Lease term they are not extending but paying-out plus Purchasing 1 additional C-17), it is VERY RISKY indeed as it assumes the GoC will actually pony up the C$2.B+ down the road to pay-out the Lease or that the GoC will be in a fiscal position (ie. not heavily in Deficit) to follow-through with a purchase.
[added 20-1-05]

Besides covering the cost of financing their own BC-17Xs, the Consortium is even willing to pony up a fair chunck of the US$ hundreds of millions in R&D costs - well over a Billion$ in Consortium funds overall (Financial Institution/Investor funded as per any airline).
The only 'government supplied financing', not directly applicable to DND, are standard repayable assistance loans available to any existing Cdn company - but unfortunately none of the 'free grants' which seem to flow to a certain Liberal friendly Quebec aerospace company. 


The main reason the Consortium requires DND onside is that without DND approaching US DoS ODTC for a 'modified Advisory Opinion' allowing BC-17X operations in Canada - its a no-go (ie. ITARs restrictions).

 

[Gobsmacked]

One question that keeps coming up when considering a civilian carrier in this role is the impact on hostile activity on flight operations.  What kinds of limitations on AC usage is your company proposing in the event, for example, that CF kit and personnel need to be extracted from a contracting perimeter?

The Consortium advises that operations in Medium-High risk destinations would be dependant on provision of a LAIRCM capability for the BC-17X - especially considering the potential MANPADS threat.  This has the side-benefit of reducing any War-Risk insurance rates.

For operations in a 'contracting perimeter' (I take it bullets/shells and what not wizzing around), as AMajor noted, an airhead at the edge of the conflict zone would be the probable route.  CF Hercs and/or 'militarized' CF BC-17Xs would handle the actual evac.
This also answers the question of a Civil Carrier and Tactical requirements - intercontinental transshipment by Civie carrier to airhead and cargo forwarding to 'hot' or 'restricted' zone by CF airlift with crews that have maintained Tactical capabilities.

 

[Sam69]

The Consortium advises that operations in Medium-High risk destinations would be dependant on provision of a LAIRCM capability for the BC-17X - especially considering the potential MANPADS threat.  This has the side-benefit of reducing any War-Risk insurance rates.

I'm curious, Gobsmacked, what your relationship to "The Consortium" is? I apologize if you have already mentioned it but I have not come across it.

Sam

 

[AftOf245]

The only DND dregs going directly to the Consortium would be a WTO approved 1/3 R&D fee (potentially repayable), and a '30 year guaranteed availability' fee (with penalties for non-availability). And unlike the NATO airlift pool, there is no preset yearly hourly limit (minimum or maximum) for the provision of charter airlift support.

A 30 year guaranteed availability fee???   I presume that this fee would offset the cost of the fixed assett.   Like I said, you want the Canadian Government to finance your airline.

Sorry, you are not political insiders.   It sounds like the Consortium is made up of retired CF brass looking to win the lottery.

 

[Wizard of OZ]

The only DND dregs going directly to the Consortium would be a WTO approved 1/3 R&D fee (potentially repayable), and a '30 year guaranteed availability' fee (with penalties for non-availability). And unlike the NATO airlift pool, there is no preset yearly hourly limit (minimum or maximum) for the provision of charter airlift support.

A 30 year guaranteed availability fee???   I presume that this fee would offset the cost of the fixed assett.   Like I said, you want the Canadian Government to finance your airline.

Sorry, you are not political insiders.   It sounds like the Consortium is made up of retired CF brass looking to win the lottery.

Isn't that how most bull*h*t projects get selected, padding someones retirement package?

 

[Kirkhill]

Does it occur to any here that in the absence of Government Policy that some Canadians might be thinking about supplying a need that most on this board feel is missing and is critical.  And that as a_majoor amongst others, including myself, has suggested that some consideration be given to some sort of public/private/partnership to be able to supply the service at a reduced cost to the taxpayer.

It would not surprise me if some, or even all, the members of "The Consortium" were ex-CFers, as most people on this board regularly complain, these issues just don't turn up on many Civvy radars.

I most definitely am not a member of "The Consortium", and I am as bothered by Patronage and Feather-bedding as anybody, and rigorous questioning of any proposals is warranted but to go from those positions to a position of "a pox on all their houses" seems to me to be uncalled for.

Imagination is called for when you run into a brick wall.  And we definitely seem to have hit a brick wall in the past on trying to get strategic lift for the CF out of the Government.

Cheers.

 

[karl28]

I think that we should perhaps look into buying 2 of the new A380 each one has capacity to move 800 people that would solve the troop moving question .  Than for cargo we could buy 4-6 C-17 just my two cents I know its wishfull thinking but one could hope .

 

[aesop081]

I think that we should perhaps look into buying 2 of the new A380 each one has capacity to move 800 people that would solve the troop moving question .   Than for cargo we could buy 4-6 C-17 just my two cents I know its wishfull thinking but one could hope .

Obviously you are not aware that very few airports in the world can acomodate the A380 at this time and that it will take millions of dollars for airports to be able to do that.  So that kind of limits the usefulness of the A/C.  We have airplanes to move troops, they just can't move them close to the battlefield....the A380 can't help us with that.