"O'Connor has $8B military 'wish list"

[Good2Golf]

Three factors:

• capital costs,
• operational & maintenance (O&M) costs, and
• political expediences.

I'd come up with a fancy formula linking all three to the Canadian situation, but I'm running short on sleep and figure my time is better spent examining the inside of my eyelids... 

Without going :"mentally mathematical" I will "qualitatively" assess that:

  a) Antonov wins in the "capital cost" category

  b) C-17 wins in the "operational costs" category

  c) C-17 wins in the "political expediency" category

This is no less valid than the qualitative "we need two brand new CL-604 jets from my brother-in-law's company because the rich Corinthian leather in my CL-601's "Grand Poohbah Seat" is wearing thin..." which, BTW, was apparently good enough justification in it's day for a tortuous 48-hour long procurement process.  :

All things in balance...just because it's cheap doesn't make it good...and conversely, just because it's more expensive doesn't make it better (I love the add with the MP3 player that looks like a woofer-speaker )

Cheers,
Duey

 

[Kirkhill]

So you tell me - would it make more sense to buy 15 J Models right now or 15 FWSAR?

I think the point of contention here is the word "buy". 

We are boxed in because despite the fact that the "best" answer may be more apparent in 5 years time - once the Js have had a chance to rack up some fleet service and the A400M has at least had a chance to fly - 19 of our fleet won't last that long.  In addition, on the FWSAR contest, while I see the benefits of the C27J in particular and its commonality with the C130J (potentially),  from what I gather the Italian Air Force, although it was the first customer, has yet to take delivery of all twelve aircraft.  Greece and Bulgaria have moved ahead on the list.  Perhaps a bit more track record there would be nice as well.  The C295M/CN235 is perhaps not all that you might desire either.

On that basis I say "Punt".

Armymatters brought up the fact that Airbus offered some H's as bridging if we committed to the A400M.  Good business on their part but it still ends up committing us to an unproven aircraft.  What that offer did though, was tell me that there are H's to be had on the market.  As well we know there are Js available on the market from the RAF.

My suggestion is to lease.  A 5 to 7 year lease on the Hs or Js (with an option to buy on the Js).  Let the Hercs continue with the SAR duties, alongside your Buffalos and figure out whether the C27J/C130J combination is workable or the C295/A400M is acceptable.

It is not as if leasing is new.  We leased Leos initially when we let the Centurions get to the same state as your Hercs.  I also wouldn't be surprised if our government didn't follow our allies and lease some of this shipping they are talking about.  It seems to be quite common in the domestic patrol vessel and logistic support vessel categories.  They are insured on the "you break'em, you bought'em" principle.

There you go.  My canned answer. Prevaricate... ;D

 

[geo]

Armymatters brought up the fact that Airbus offered some H's as bridging if we committed to the A400M.  Good business on their part but it still ends up committing us to an unproven aircraft.  What that offer did though, was tell me that there are H's to be had on the market.  As well we know there are Js available on the market from the RAF.

I was under the impression that the RAF did take delivery of the J's.?

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Can anyone tell me- has the policy changed that prohibited Canadian Soldiers (vice gear or supplies) from flying on the Russian aircraft supplying Kandahar?

 

[Armymatters]

I was under the impression that the RAF did take delivery of the J's.?

They no longer want them.

Edit: I over-generalized. They no longer want the regular J's. They want to hold onto the J-30's, for now.

 

[KevinB]

They no longer want them.

Do you have a source for that -- the RAF pilots I have talked to here seem to like them...

 

[Kirkhill]

Geo (and Infidel-6):

From what I understand the RAF bought a mixed buy of 25 Hercules to replace/augment their existing fleet.  Of these 10 were C130Js  aka C5s and 15 were C130J-30s aka C4s.  The RAF will continue to operate a mixed fleet of C1s and C3s (aka C130Ks aka C130H-30s) edit:  alongside of the C4s and C5s.
http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/hercules.html
http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/c-130j.html

CASR speculates that the RAF is offering is willing to offer these up so that the MOD will let them buy more C17s.
http://www.sfu.ca/casr/bg-airlift-raf.htm

Same source also notes that LM is offering J's on lease.  Airliner magazine confirms that LM made a similar offer to the German Air Force as a stopgap until the A400 comes on line.  No word on delivery schedule.

RAF offer, if real, is interesting because of the delivery time.  For the same reason late model Hs as offered by Airbus would also be interesting.

Interestingly, buried in an MOD accounting report of 2004 was a line item stating that a classified upgrade programme on the C130js had been cancelled as a cost saving measure.  UK MOD Annual Report and Accounts 2004.

Infidel - next time you run into one of those RAF fellas it would be interesting to find out what they have heard.  Cheers.

 

[CougarKing]

We  are  about  to  become  the  first  suckers,  thanks  to  Mr. Harper  and  his desperation  at  pleasing  the  White  House.  Even  the UK  (Mr. Blair)  did  not want to buy any C-17s.  (The UK  leased a few, waiting  for the  Airbus A400M).

[CASR  update:  In the end, both the UK  and  Australia decided  to buy  C-17s, each  driven  by  their  own  particular  political  and  military  imperatives  –  so, Canada  might  not be the  'first  adopter'  –  but we may very  well  be  the  last.]

The  Boeing  C-17s are going  to be  purchased  by DND  through  'sole-sourcing',
which  means  that  no alternative  bids  are  going  to  be  accepted.  Here's  what Canadian  law  has  to  say  about  sole - source  buying.[/b]

When i read this i asked myself why are we buying these aircraft?

In the May 2006 issue of the UK magainze "Air Forces Monthly", it stated that the RAAF chose to acquire 3-4 C-17As at a cost of $2 billion AUS or $ US 1.42 billion).The article also stated that the C-17's capacity to carry the Australian Army's new M1A1 tanks was one of the reasons why the RAAF acquired the planes, aside each C-17's capacity to transport four times the load of an RAAF C-130. 

I'm not voicing any opinion here, just adding more facts. Perhaps any Australian posters on this forum would like to share their own thoughts about their C-17s.

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

They no longer want them.

Edit: I over-generalized. They no longer want the regular J's. They want to hold onto the J-30's, for now.

IIRC, this was NOT because of problems with the aircraft.  Instead, the RAF was looking at standardizing on "stretched" versions, while the original C-130Js had regular cargo capabilities.  I believe, based on reporting at the time, that these were the versions offered to Canada for lease.

Frankly, all these semantics about types of aircraft and the political invective are getting rather tiresome. The fact of the matter is:

1.  The A400M is not flying right now and may have problems in the future.  This is what led the RAF to buy C-130Js and C-17s in the first place.

2.  The C-17 is a proven and highly capable aircraft flown by our major allies and of which - having worked extensively with them on operations - I have heard nothing but praise.  Yes, they're expensive, but they provide enormous capability.

                  Cargo      #463L                  CDS        Combat     Para
                  Floor        Pallets    Litters    Bundles        Troops
Model

C-130J          55 ft          8          97          24          128          92
A400M          58 ft          9          66          24          120          120
(Proposed)
C-17            65 ft        18        36          40          102          102
C-130E/H      40 ft          6          74          16            92            64
C-130J
(Short)

To me, this is a no-brainer.  The C-17 will carry any tactical vehicle in the Army's inventory, plus twice as many cargo pallets as an A-400M.

3.  Boeing has stated categorically that these aircraft will be serviced in Canada and that we could take advantage - as the UK and Australians already have - of their global servicing network.  Moreover, to sooth the porkbarrel crowd, they've promised industrial offsets.

4.  Much has been made of the fact that the C-17 will leave production in 2008.  So what?  Does this mean that spares will dry up?  Get real.  Given their past record, the USAF will keep C-17s in service for at least 40 years!

5.  The political BS claiming that the US will have tasking authority over our aircraft, that they'll have to be based in the US because the CF has no hangers and that all the maintenance will have do be conducted south of the border is just that - BS.  Worse, such claims are deliberate distortions of the truth designed to panic a gullible media and to pursue an anti-American agenda.

5.  CASR and others have argued for the purchase of Russian aircraft.  This is a non-starter for so many reasons that it almost defies description.  Incompatibility with STANAGs and ABCA standards, shoddy construction, unreliability, poor engines, increased fuel consumption, lack of a viable training regime, on and on.  These points have been gone over on other threads repeatedly, yet the same arguments crop up over and over again.  There is a reason why (unless things have changed in the last 12 months) CF personnel cannot fly on chartered Russian/Ukrainian aircraft - and it isn't all connected with aircrew reliability.

We are going round and round the same points, making the same arguments.  Those who believe we'd buy C-17s to appease Bush and suck up to the Americans will never be convinced.  Likewise, the techno-geeks out there will grind their teeth on every infinitesimal detail, trying to pick the proposed purchase apart.

You can make an argument that a CC-130 replacement is needed more than a new heavy-lifter.  However, you cannot argue that new aircraft are needed NOW, not later, and  quite frankly I don't give a damn about how many industrial offsets are going to Quebec and how we might appear to be sucking up to Dubya.

As you might have guessed, I'm rounds expended on this subject.  My final word?  Damn the critics; buy C-17s AND C-130Js now, rather than wait for some nebulous future product that may or may not actually meet advertised timelines and/or capabilities.

Cheers,

TR

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

+1

 

[Journeyman]

Teddy, you really suck at waffling and flip-flopping on an issue. Are you sure you're in Ottawa?  ;D

 

[Mortar guy]

5.  CASR and others have argued for the purchase of Russian aircraft.  This is a non-starter for so many reasons that it almost defies description.  Incompatibility with STANAGs and ABCA standards, shoddy construction, unreliability, poor engines, increased fuel consumption, lack of a viable training regime, on and on.  These points have been gone over on other threads repeatedly, yet the same arguments crop up over and over again.  There is a reason why (unless things have changed in the last 12 months) CF personnel cannot fly on chartered Russian/Ukrainian aircraft - and it isn't all connected with aircrew reliability.


Cheers,

TR

Teddy,

I don't disagree with most of what you're saying and I am in no way proposing we buy Russian aircraft, but this statement of yours above about engines and electronics is not entirely accurate. The AN-124-100M has been designed with western avionics (provided by Honeywell)  and the AN-124-210 adds to that by adding Rolls Royce RB211 engines. So, there is a Russian aircraft out there with western avoinics and engines that can carry more than a C-17 at less than half the price. I still agree that there are political reasons why it will never work but the technical ones are not that big.

Regards,

MG

 

[MarkOttawa]

Does anyone really think the A400M will be delivered on time (and on budget)?

Airbus warns of expensive, new A380 production delays

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060614.RAIRBUS14/TPStory/Business

'Airbus SAS revealed new delays of at least six months in deliveries of its A380 superjumbo yesterday, in an embarrassing new setback expected to blow a €2-billion ($2.8-billion) cash hole in parent EADS NV starting in 2007.

The European plane maker said it will still deliver the first aircraft to Singapore Airlines Ltd. in 2006, but will slow down deliveries from next year onwards because of problems with the installation of electrical wiring harnesses.

"We have had an industrial delay. It will shift the program to the right by six to seven months," said John Leahy, Airbus' chief commercial officer...

Airbus upset airlines earlier in the A380 production cycle by announcing a six-month delay in deliveries after insisting that the program was running to schedule...'

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Journeyman]

Does anyone really think the A400M will be delivered on time (and on budget)?

Armymatters still seems to be campaigning on that promise  >

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

Teddy, you really suck at waffling and flip-flopping on an issue. Are you sure you're in Ottawa?  ;D

I'm not! 

I don't disagree with most of what you're saying and I am in no way proposing we buy Russian aircraft, but this statement of yours above about engines and electronics is not entirely accurate. The AN-124-100M has been designed with western avionics (provided by Honeywell)  and the AN-124-210 adds to that by adding Rolls Royce RB211 engines. So, there is a Russian aircraft out there with western avoinics and engines that can carry more than a C-17 at less than half the price. I still agree that there are political reasons why it will never work but the technical ones are not that big.

It is accurate.  The aircraft don't exist.  From Jane's (current edition):

An-124-100M-150

As for -100M, but enhanced navigation aids comprising Jeppersen global database in Leninets A-820M computer and UKRNIIRA SRPPZ-2000 GPWS, allowing aircraft to conform to P-RNAV requirements. Prototype, conversion of RA-82008, first flew August 2004 at start of 34-sortie test programme.

An-124-210

Joint proposal with Air Foyle to meet UK's Short Term Strategic Airlifter (STSA) requirement; 273 kN (60,600 lb st) Rolls-Royce RB211-524H-T engines and Honeywell avionics. Weight empty 184,000 kg (405,650 lb); payload and MTOW as An-124-100. Range (30 min reserves plus 5 per cent) 2,267 n miles (4,200 km; 2,609 miles) with 120,000 kg (264,550 lb) max payload; 3,855 n miles (7,140 km; 4,436 miles) with 80,000 kg (176,375 lb); or 7,424 n miles (13,750 km; 8,543 miles) with max fuel. JAR 25 runway length 2,300 m (7,545 ft). Three flight crew. STSA competition was abandoned in August 1999, then reinstated and won by Boeing C-17A.

There are all sorts of other proposals for other engines and avionics, but the fact of the matter remains that none of these aircraft are actually flying.  The addition of a modicum of Western electronics does not resolve basic QA issues with the airframes themselves, nor does it address the other (training, spares, maintenance, etc.) problems that come up when dealing with Russian/Ukrainian aircraft.

 

[Armymatters]

Armymatters still seems to be campaigning on that promise  >

They already gave us interm aircraft, so we can wait it out, and severely fine Airbus for the delay, if the government is smart enough to structure the deal carefully enough.

 

[aesop081]

They already gave us interm aircraft, so we can wait it out, and severely fine Airbus for the delay, if the government is smart enough to structure the deal carefully enough.

:

 

[Colin Parkinson]

They already gave us interm aircraft, so we can wait it out, and severely fine Airbus for the delay, if the government is smart enough to structure the deal carefully enough.

Going by the way Government negotiates contracts, likely we will get penalized for finally having to break the contract and buy something else after waiting 15 years. 

 

[MarkOttawa]

aesop081:

AND TAKE A LAST, FLYING LOOK
AT THE LAST LONELY HERCULES

http://www.nrpsmusic.com/music/lyrics/lastlonely.html

Mark
Ottawa

 

[aesop081]

aesop081:
http://www.nrpsmusic.com/music/lyrics/lastlonely.html

Mark
Ottawa

Did i miss something ?

or am i just going blind on my OPME essay ?