A possible C-130H Replacement?

[geo]

.... who knows - "it" could be ready before the A400M is in full production >

 

[TCBF]

We need a FWSAR bird NOW!

The government of the day had run out of funds to continue to invest in the Arrow.

- The defence budget was falling year-by-year in the late fifties, and the government had known since the early fifties that it would need to fund 1 Air Div in Europe, new radar lines, a long-range interceptor in Canada, an area defence SAM, probably with a nuclear warhead, etc.  No way the RCAF budget could handle that.  Had they budgeted the Arrow out of another government envelope to establish the industry further - that may have worked - though perhaps not politically.

- General Guy Simmonds was an early proponent of canning the Arrow, believing that Canada should develop it's own Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM: "Star Wars") system to counter the ICBM/SLBMs they thought the Soviets would have in 1960 to 1965, that could also stop the cruise missiles that they believed the Soviets would fit on their legacy bomber fleet. 

- Which brings us back to: the only way Canada - and most other countries - can retain (never mind build) a domestic aerospace industry is through government subsidy.  The PRODUCT of that subsidy makes the subsidy more or less palitable if it is a product most Canadians can identify with at the time, not fifty years after it is cancelled.  Would Canadians believe in a massive project building military cargo aircraft that could be built better and cheaper in other countries?  Not unless Bombardier had no other orders on it's books.

 

[Zoomie]

Where are you guys coming up with this H-model replacement plan?  We don't differentiate between them.  They are all in a hurt locker and being replaced.

The E's and the H's are being replaced by 17 J's and 15 FWSAR planes.  We pretty much are not flying many if any E models right now.  The best H models are over playing in the desert right now - with the remainder for AAR, FWSAR, FG and TAL.

Once the J's come online - the TAL crews will no longer fly the E/H legacy models.  FWSAR would continue to utilize these airframes at 413,424 and 435 until the replacement bird comes online or they stop flying altogether.  Once a FWSAR replacement is in place, the E/H models are done.  We are not going to retain crews to fly three differing airframes.

 

[thunderchild]

We have a company that you are all familiar with call Skylink Aviation who's major business is using Russian aircraft to move around oversized cargo.  What I'm saying is by using a civilian launch customer we could offset the cost of the program, there is a large enough demand for the services so there is a demand for large cargo aircraft. EG UPS,Fed EX both cancelled their orders for A-380F aircraft due to cost.  Besides do you really want to keep hoping that governments are going to keep letting us jump the Que for key equipment.

Not every new aviation program is going to end up as the Avro Arrow did, that aircraft was built in the last century let the damb thing go it didn't have a chance to prove what it might have been able to do. 

 

[Nfld Sapper]

:

op:

 

[aesop081]

We have a company that you are all familiar with call Skylink Aviation who's major business is using Russian aircraft to move around oversized cargo.  What I'm saying is by using a civilian launch customer we could offset the cost of the program, there is a large enough demand for the services so there is a demand for large cargo aircraft. EG UPS,Fed EX both cancelled their orders for A-380F aircraft due to cost.  Besides do you really want to keep hoping that governments are going to keep letting us jump the Que for key equipment.

Not every new aviation program is going to end up as the Avro Arrow did, that aircraft was built in the last century let the damb thing go it didn't have a chance to prove what it might have been able to do. 

As i said before, you are correct on all counts. Well done.

 

[newfin]

Where are you guys coming up with this H-model replacement plan?  We don't differentiate between them.  They are all in a hurt locker and being replaced.

The E's and the H's are being replaced by 17 J's and 15 FWSAR planes.  We pretty much are not flying many if any E models right now.  The best H models are over playing in the desert right now - with the remainder for AAR, FWSAR, FG and TAL.

Once the J's come online - the TAL crews will no longer fly the E/H legacy models.  FWSAR would continue to utilize these airframes at 413,424 and 435 until the replacement bird comes online or they stop flying altogether.  Once a FWSAR replacement is in place, the E/H models are done.  We are not going to retain crews to fly three differing airframes.

I think Zoomie has said very clearly everything that needs to be said about the future of C-130E/H's and Buffalos.  There are plans in place to replace them and once that is done the military/government can turn its attention to some other procurement issue.  We don't need to build a "Made in Canada" aircraft to solve this problem.  We just need to issue purchase orders.

By the way Zoomie, I take it from what you said that the C-130 AAR aircraft will also be retired?

 

[Zoomie]

By the way Zoomie, I take it from what you said that the C-130 AAR aircraft will also be retired?

I can't speak with any authority on that issue - as that is a higher headquarter decision.  I do know that our AAR Hercs are currently operated and crewed out of 435 Sqn in Winnipeg.  Upon the inception of any new FWSAR - that squadron will be out of the Hercules business.  436 will be flying J-Hercs. Who gets the role of TAL AAR?  Do we dump the role completely with the introduction of the MRTT Polaris'? 

Slightly out of my lane, so I will keep my speculation to a minimum.

 

[Globesmasher]

By the way Zoomie, I take it from what you said that the C-130 AAR aircraft will also be retired?

The new C-130J Hercules will NOT be plumbed to be a tanker (or passer of gas).

 

[Globesmasher]

What I'm saying is by using a civilian launch customer we could offset the cost of the program, there is a large enough demand for the services so there is a demand for large cargo aircraft.

It was analyzed during both the ACP-S and the ACP-T programs.
It turns out that it does NOT off an offset to the cost of the program.

Trust me, it was looked at and studied.  At first glance it does appear cheaper ... but after detailed study and analysis, it isn't.
The devil is always in the details.

 

[Nfld Sapper]

The new C-130J Hercules will NOT be plumbed to be a tanker (or passer of gas).

No pun intended there GM  ;D

 

[Edward Campbell]

This, re: the C130 maintenance contract, is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/deal-to-maintain-military-cargo-planes-finally-in-sight/article1420326/

Deal to maintain military cargo planes finally in sight
Ottawa nears multibillion-dollar agreement with Lockheed Martin but critics wonder if government could have done better

Murray Brewster

Ottawa — The Canadian Press

Published on Wednesday, Jan. 06, 2010

After months of haggling, Ottawa is close to a multibillion-dollar agreement to maintain a fleet of military cargo planes – but the pending contract with Lockheed Martin has left a sour taste for many in the defence industry and government.
The deal is expected to be announced in early February, say defence and industry sources who spoke to The Canadian Press on Tuesday.

A team of federal officials is currently at Lockheed Martin's plant in Marietta, Ga., ironing out last-minute details.

“We're in great shape,” said one defence insider. “You'll see an announcement very, very shortly. We're there.”

Seventeen state-of-the-art C-130J Hercules transports are being acquired under a sole-source arrangement with Lockheed Martin, a deal announced nearly two years ago with fanfare by Defence Minister Peter MacKay.

But unlike other big-ticket deals, the $1.4-billion purchase came without a signed long-term maintenance contract.

The Defence Department set aside an additional $1.7-billion for 20 years of in-service support, but that plan quickly went off the rails when the aircraft-maker delivered a cost-estimate that was reportedly 50 per cent higher than the budget.

A federal official played down the surprise, saying it was only a projection and original proposals “are always higher than what you initially estimate.” To get a compromise “takes hard work and tough negotiation,” the official added, on condition of anonymity.

Sources insist both the purchase and the service program will be delivered for less than the Conservative government's nearly $3.2-billion program budget.

But to do that, the federal government may have had to drastically reduce the length of the service deal. Sources said what was intended to be a 20-year support agreement has now shrunk to seven years, with renewal options down the road to cover the life of the aircraft.

Public Works Canada, which is in charge of contract negotiation, declined to comment Tuesday on the specifics of the arrangement.

Lockheed Martin will be directly in charge of the overall support deal during the first phase, with subcontracts to Canadian companies for specific work and parts, sources said.

Defence observers are wondering what kind of deal the government has struck, given that the first seven years of an aircraft's life are the least maintenance-intensive.

“It's like a car,” said Liberal Senator Colin Kenny, who chaired the Senate security and defence committee before Parliament was prorogued. “The cost of maintenance rises over time. The government seems to have a deal that covers the cheapest time frame.” He said the big cost of maintaining the planes is being pushed off on future governments.

The new Hercules are replacing existing transports that in some cases are over 30 years old. The first pair of new turbo-prop four-engine planes – dubbed the workhorses of the air force – are due to be delivered later this year.

There are also questions about how much benefit Canadian companies will receive from the aircraft giant.

At first, the federal government demanded the U.S. corporation deliver direct, industrial participation, with Canadian companies either building parts or contributing to the maintenance.

But last year the government quietly dropped its direct benefit demand and replaced it with something called a “near-direct benefit” up to 75 per cent of the contract value.

Political sources say Lockheed Martin executives often played hardball with federal officials during negotiations – something that apparently irked cabinet members, particularly Industry Minister Tony Clement.

The aircraft-maker is hoping to sell its highly advanced F-35 Lightning stealth fighter to Canada's air force, starting in 2015, replacing the fleet of CF-18s. The bruising negotiations have apparently not endeared the corporation to the federal cabinet, which held a heated debate about the transport plane in early December, said one source.

Instead of spending money on the C-130J in Canada, Lockheed Martin will be required to buy equivalent defence contracts and services elsewhere in the country.

Keeping big-ticket military purchases within budget has been a challenge for the Conservatives, who vowed to rebuild the Armed Forces after years of budget cuts under the Liberals.

In 2008, the government shelved an order for three military supply ships because of higher-than-expected costs, and watered down the capabilities of six planned Arctic patrol ships in order to keep them within budget.

Life cycle management of systems, especially major systems, is, broadly:

1. More expensive that the system itself, sometimes several times more expensive; and

2. More important than some (many? most?) of the operational characteristics of the system itself. If it can’t be kept at sea, on the road, in the air, who cares how good it is?

Budgeting, in the Ottawa context – meaning getting and (wisely) allocating money) is a more important skill for an admiral/general than ship handling, tactics or flying.

 

[MarkOttawa]

C-130J mainentance contract likely to be short term, cost lots--it looks like the planned long-term contract would break the budget bank and some future government will have to come up with the cash. F-35 might also suffer in consideration for our next fighter:

Military cargo plane maintenance contract sealed after bitter talks: sources (usual copyright disclaimer)

After months of haggling, Ottawa is close to a multibillion-dollar agreement to maintain a fleet of military cargo planes - but the pending contract with Lockheed Martin has left a sour taste for many in the defence industry and government.

The deal is expected to be announced in early February, say defence and industry sources who spoke to The Canadian Press on Tuesday [Jan. 5]...

Seventeen state-of-the-art C-130J Hercules transports are being acquired under a sole-source arrangement with Lockheed Martin, a deal announced almost two years ago with fanfare by Defence Minister Peter MacKay.

But unlike other big-ticket deals, the $1.4-billion purchase came without a signed long-term maintenance contract.

The Defence Department set aside an additional $1.7 billion for 20 years of in-service support, but that plan quickly went off the rails when the aircraft-maker delivered a cost-estimate that was reportedly 50 per cent higher than the budget.

A federal official played down the surprise, saying it was only a projection and original proposals "are always higher than what you initially estimate."..

Sources insist both the purchase and the service program will be delivered for less than the Conservative government's nearly $3.2-billion program budget.

But to do that the federal government may have had to drastically reduce the length of the service deal.

Sources said what was intended to be a 20-year support agreement has now shrunk to seven years, with renewal options down the road to cover the life of the aircraft.

Public Works Canada, which is in charge of contract negotiation, declined to comment Tuesday on the specifics of the arrangement.

Lockheed Martin will be directly in charge of the overall support deal during the first phase, with sub-contracts to Canadian companies for specific work and parts, sources said.

Defence observers are wondering what kind of deal the government has struck, given that the first seven years of an aircraft's life are the least maintenance-intensive.

"It's like a car," said Liberal Senator Colin Kenny, who chaired the Senate security and defence committee before Parliament was prorogued. "The cost of maintenance rises over time. The government seems to have a deal that covers the cheapest time frame."

He said the big cost of maintaining the planes is being pushed off on future governments...

At first, the federal government demanded the U.S. corporation deliver direct, industrial participation with Canadian companies either building parts or contributing to the maintenance.

But last year the government quietly dropped its direct benefit demand and replaced it with something called a "near-direct benefit" up to 75 per cent of the contract value...

The aircraft-maker is hoping to sell its highly advanced F-35 Lightning stealth fighter to Canada's air force, starting in 2015, replacing the fleet of CF-18s. The bruising negotiations have apparently not endeared the corporation to the federal cabinet, which held a heated debate about the transport plane in early December, said one source.

Instead of spending money on the C-130J in Canada, Lockheed Martin will be required to buy equivalent defence contracts and services elsewhere in the country...

Mark
Ottawa