Will the C17s Make it to the Ramp?

[observor 69]

And some more stuff that might be of interest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CFB_Trenton

On June 22, 2006 the Treasury Board of Canada approved the purchase of four aircraft to address Canada's strategic airlift capability shortfall. The aircraft chosen to meet the needs of the Canadian Forces is Boeing's C-17 Globemaster III. (Canada will use the identifier CC177). The main base of operations has been announced by a recent CANAIRGEN to be CFB Trenton. With this announcement Trenton remains the centre of heavy lift transport.

The first of four CC177's are scheduled to arrive in Trenton, summer 2007. However this requires several infrastructure projects, which may require the new aircraft to operate from a temporary location till the facilities are built.

The base is also slated to become the new home of Joint Task Force 2, Canada's elite commando unit. The move from the unit's current Dwyer Hill facility to CFB Trenton will be complete by 2010.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Oh dear.  David Akin of CTV posts this at his blog:

"The CC-177 -- Canada's newest (and biggest) military toy"
http://davidakin.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2007/2/5/2711609.html

-10.

And the Navy's ships are bigger.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[vonGarvin]

Perhaps Mr Akins is inferring that as the Senior Service, the Navy would NEVER treat HMC Ships as toys

 

[DavidAkin]

I am pleased to promptly respond when I write something that is less than clear ... 

And so:
The CC-177 -- Canada's newest big military toy
http://davidakin.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2007/2/5/2711609.html

And while I'm  here -- let me add my thanks to Globesmasher for all the helpful info about this program ...

Late last year, I interviewed Maj. Jean Maisonneuve about the C-17 acquisition.  Those here who know him know he has flown more than 100 combat missions with the USAF in their C-17s. I got the impression from him that these planes are indeed something else ...

 

[MarkOttawa]

Mr Akin,

Your post was not lacking in clarity.  It was wrong.  And it is snide, typical of our journalists when they write on the military.  One hoped to expect better of you.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[vonGarvin]

Mark
I didn't find Mr. Akin's article snide, rude or typical in any way.  Use of colloquialism?  Perhaps.  Would I call it a "toy"?  Jokingly, perhaps. 

The world still turns, and in my opinion, Mr. Akin's articles, even if you consider it snide, is nothing compared to this:

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/47489/


Enjoy

 

[hotelquebec9er]

Mr Akin,

Your post was not lacking in clarity.  It was wrong.  And it is snide, typical of our journalists when they write on the military.  One hoped to expect better of you.

Mark
Ottawa

...and we wonder why the military regularly doesn't get a heck of a lot of respect from journalists... 

 

[Kirkhill]

Mark, was there something else to David's post other than that which is currently on his blog?

Because I don't see anything untoward there.

Cheers.

 

[aesop081]

MOD WARNING

Personal attacks, against anyone wont fly....keep it civil or it will be gone......

First and only warning

army.ca staff

 

[Inch]

Nomenclature comes from CAS and DAR.

It will be the:

CC-177
Globemaster lll (No French quivalent)
Tail numbers are 701, 702, 703 and 704.

Is it going to be a 6 digit tail number or a 5 digit number? ie 177701 or 17701?

 

[greentoblue]

Mr Adkin, I have registered for this forum specifically to reply to you:  as a serving air force officer I take great offence at the description of the CC177/C17 as a "toy".  The tone you use suggests that the acquistion of this aircraft is superflous to Canadian needs - in the same vein as overpriced European sports cars, luxury SUVS and yachts for Bay Street stockbrokers.  Nothing can be further from the truth.

The air force has been scrambling to keep the air bridge of troops, equipment and ammunition amongst other supplies flowing to Kandahar.  Critical to these efforts were the use of US Air Force C17s that flew out of our bases, carrying supplies for use of OUR troops.  The C17s flew directly from Canada into Kandahar which saved time and additional effort as we did not have to impose a logistical stopgap of unloading from one aircraft into another as we have to do with the Airbus/C130 combination.  (I will not post dates or locations due to security reasons.)  Unfortunately, we were not able to continue using C17s on a regular basis due to operational commitments from their own country.  Suffice to say, if (and soon when) we had our own C17s there would be no lack of missions to keep them occuppied - benefiting Canadians, and more importantly, Canadian soldiers.

MOD: This is nothing personal about Mr Adkin - it is about the tone he used.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Hauptmann Scharlachrot, Kirkhill: I should have been more clear.  The original title (not the post) was both snide and wrong.  As for "toy" (still in the title) the current Liberal finance critic--when MND--used the phrase in the original title which simply mocks the needs of the CF.  And female members.
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=535265&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=37&Ses=2#SOB-311770

I await a journalist, when writing of medical equipment needed for diagnosis or surgery, referring to "toys for the boys".

Mark
Ottawa

 

[DavidAkin]

Mr Adkin, I have registered for this forum specifically to reply to you:  as a serving air force officer I take great offence at the description of the CC177/C17 as a "toy".  The tone you use suggests that the acquistion of this aircraft is superflous to Canadian needs - in the same vein as overpriced European sports cars, luxury SUVS and yachts for Bay Street stockbrokers.  Nothing can be further from the truth.
....
MOD: This is nothing personal about Mr Adkin - it is about the tone he used.

No offence taken at this end (though it would be nice if people spelled AKIN the way I spell it, but perhaps I'm being picky).

I realize that I'm going to be a bit of a lightning rod for the sin of every journalist to ever cover a military matter. As for characterizing the C-17s as a toy -- well, I suppose you see something in the use of the language that I don't see nor intended. Fair enough, you've let me know about it.

Now, as for the argument as to whether the C-17s are an urgently needed piece of kit -- well, on that point, I hope you'll concede that that debate is not nearly so cut-and-dried. I hold no position in that debate but I am interested in describing the debate.

We do have the currenct CDS on record saying that had it been a choice between tactical and strategic, he would have found a way to make do with renting/leasing strategic because he believed tactical airlift was an absolute must-have. Mind you, he said when the Liberals were in power. It's difficult to get him to be so equivocal now that the government has changed.

Among the political overseers of the the military's budget, there are some very big fans of the need to buy strategic, notably, Edmonton MP Laurie Hawn. Hawn is a former CF18 pilot and member of the Commons Defence Committee and has often made many of the same arguments you just made.

As a reporter, I would be very interested to learn of situations where operational efficiency or effectiveness was put at risk because Canada failed to secure strategic airlift in a timely manner. Though I've asked several times,  compelling examples have yet to be provided. Please let me know -- on or off this board ... These sorts of examples would be precisely the sort of thing that the public ought to know about it.

Those interested in this issue will want to know that the CDS and the MND will testify tomorrow at a meeting of the Commons Committee on National Defence [http://tinyurl.com/2lbjo3] and I know that some opposition members of that committee will be asking Hillier and O'Connor about DND's procurement priorities.  This committee will be televised. I'm not sure what, if any, broadcaster is carrying it live (CPAC perhaps?) but it will be likely available online through the Parliamentary Webcast service.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

David,
I can see how one not associated with the 'job' could use that word, just remember those pieces of equipment are our 'raison d'etre".

Knowing the way you write I'm sure you meant no harm whatsoever.
Thanks again for being one of the few that will come explain things from your world.

 

[Meridian]

Question to those who can clear up (or confirm) Boeing's spin, but they state:

As the only tactical airlifter with strategic range, the C-17 has become the world's airlifter of choice.

http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2007/q1/070202d_nr.html

This implies to me that at least Boeing considers this aircraft to actually be (albeit perhaps oversized) tactical lift, with strategic abilities, rather than a strategic lift airframe, with tactical capabilities.  Which is it, or is it all just semantics?  Globesmasher had wrote earlier that it was indeed very useful tactically...

I raise this only because Mr Akin (Spelled right, hopefully) and the MSM have often quoted this "strategic vs tactical" argument.

 

[tomahawk6]

No offence taken at this end (though it would be nice if people spelled AKIN the way I spell it, but perhaps I'm being picky).

I realize that I'm going to be a bit of a lightning rod for the sin of every journalist to ever cover a military matter. As for characterizing the C-17s as a toy -- well, I suppose you see something in the use of the language that I don't see nor intended. Fair enough, you've let me know about it.

Now, as for the argument as to whether the C-17s are an urgently needed piece of kit -- well, on that point, I hope you'll concede that that debate is not nearly so cut-and-dried. I hold no position in that debate but I am interested in describing the debate.

We do have the currenct CDS on record saying that had it been a choice between tactical and strategic, he would have found a way to make do with renting/leasing strategic because he believed tactical airlift was an absolute must-have. Mind you, he said when the Liberals were in power. It's difficult to get him to be so equivocal now that the government has changed.

Among the political overseers of the the military's budget, there are some very big fans of the need to buy strategic, notably, Edmonton MP Laurie Hawn. Hawn is a former CF18 pilot and member of the Commons Defence Committee and has often made many of the same arguments you just made.

As a reporter, I would be very interested to learn of situations where operational efficiency or effectiveness was put at risk because Canada failed to secure strategic airlift in a timely manner. Though I've asked several times,  compelling examples have yet to be provided. Please let me know -- on or off this board ... These sorts of examples would be precisely the sort of thing that the public ought to know about it.

Those interested in this issue will want to know that the CDS and the MND will testify tomorrow at a meeting of the Commons Committee on National Defence [http://tinyurl.com/2lbjo3] and I know that some opposition members of that committee will be asking Hillier and O'Connor about DND's procurement priorities.  This committee will be televised. I'm not sure what, if any, broadcaster is carrying it live (CPAC perhaps?) but it will be likely available online through the Parliamentary Webcast service.

Globesmasher pointed out in a post that it took DART weeks to be deployed instead of days with the C-17.
You mentioned leasing aircraft. The USAF thought leasing was the way to go to fund the next generation of tankers.The problem is that leasing is not ownership and leasing costs can be more expensive than an outright purchase. If you can afford it buying is better than leasing.

The C-17 is a very capable aircraft that unless you buy a Russian built aircraft, has no counterpart in the west. Canada and Australia are able to acquire aircraft at a competitive price with delivery inside of 18 months which simply cannot be matched. As Globesmasher pointed out all C-17's have a built in lifetime upgrade package that no other aircraft can match. Frankly with Canada's requirements 4 aircraft is the bare minimum for Canada's current and future commitments. I think a total of 6 C-17's would be more in line, but 4 is a great start. The left in Canada has starved the CF for funds for decades and only now under a government that understands that to be a player on the global stage one needs the chips play with. The left feel that spending on the military is a waste of money but having a strong modern military goes part and parcel with being a player on the world stage. Long range lift and medium lift helicopters make your military mobile and flexible because these assets can be used to support humanitarian missions. When Pakistan was devestated by earthquakes US Army Chinooks flew from Afghanistan into "indian territory"
to provide humanitarian aid that made us many friends in a region that had a rather hostile view of the US.

The bottom line is that much of the MSM is hostile to the military as well as the conservative government. The parties can disagree but having a strong national defense should have bipartisan support instead of being a political football for the advantage of one side or the other.

 

[h3tacco]

        The deployment DART at the end 2004 (Tsunami)  was delayed for a number weeks precisely because we were not able secure strategic lift. Edit - Oops looks like I missed the punch line.

 

[MarkOttawa]

DavidAkin:

We do have the current CDS on record saying that had it been a choice between tactical and strategic, he would have found a way to make do with renting/leasing strategic because he believed tactical airlift was an absolute must-have. Mind you, he said when the Liberals were in power. It's difficult to get him to be so equivocal now that the government has changed.

Indeed.  This was the situation with the Liberals in government (though I find this "David" much more difficult as a reporter I am sure the facts are basically right and could, with time, find other references):
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=2527983&C=america

In 2000, the Canadian Air Force determined that the C-17 best met its strategic airlift needs, and planners started laying the groundwork for buying six of the aircraft. It went as far as having pilots go to the United States to train on the C-17.

But in 2003, the Liberal government derailed plans to purchase strategic transport aircraft, noting it would be cheaper to rent such planes when needed for overseas operations.

When the CF absolutely must have tactical lift (Hercs) because many of the current planes are on their last legs, and when the Liberal government has made it clear they will not buy C-17s, then faute de mieux one will opt for a Herc replacement since that is the only option that government will accept.
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/01/liberals-and-c-130j.html

I see no equivocation, then or now.  There was no question of "had it been a choice" as the Liberal government had ruled out C-17s.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Globesmasher]

Is it going to be a 6 digit tail number or a 5 digit number? ie 177701 or 17701?

Inch:

I think we're going for the 5 digit version just like the Airbus ..... but I haven't actually see the authorized and apporved paint scheme yet.  But people tell me it's going to be 5 digits.

 

[Globesmasher]

         The deployment DART at the end 2004 (Tsunami)  was delayed for a number weeks precisely because we were not able secure strategic lift.

And our only available "tactical airlift" assets were busy doing SAR and Afghanistan ... there was nothing servicable left to fly the DART anywhere.