RUMINT of Canada wanting more C-17's

[bradley247]

I wonder what this is going to be about...

http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?nid=915869&tp=3

 

[Kirkhill]

I don't understand your calcs, Kirkhill.

If you want to calculate $/tonnes-Km, you have to divide the hourly cost by the number of Km's in an hour and then divide by the number of tonnes on the plane (i will use metric tonnes, since you put the cargo capacity in Kgs - which is 1,000 kg to a tonne)

This means that:

C-17: $23,279 / 830 / 72.6 = $0.39 $/tonnes-Km.

C-130: $13,644 / 657 / 21.7 = $0.96/tonnes-Km.

The C-17 wins again, even for weight.

You're right.  I was wrong.  Trying to be too clever by half.  :-[

 

[dapaterson]

You're right.  I was wrong.  Trying to be too clever by half.  :-[

No, by 40.625%

 

[McG]

With all the public criticism of stealth budget cuts, I wonder if this decision was in anyway influenced as government damage control over year-end money returns.

 

[McG]

The announcement is made:

Ottawa to buy 5th C-17 aircraft
CTV News
19 Dec 2014

Ottawa has procured another C-17 military transport aircraft, bringing the total number of C-17s in the Royal Canadian Air Force's fleet to five.

Defence Minister Rob Nicholson announced the purchase of the Boeing-made plane on Friday at Canadian Forces Base Trenton

He said the additional C-17 will ease the burden on the current fleet, and will extend the life expectancy of all five planes by about seven-and-a-half years.

"Having a fifth C-17 will significantly augment the flexibility of the Canadian Armed Forces strategic airlift," Nicholson said.

The C-17 Globemaster III – which in Canada is designated as the CC-177 Globemaster III -- is a four-engine long-haul aircraft that can transport large equipment, supplies and troops directly to small airfields anywhere in the world, according to Boeing.

It has a carrying capacity of nearly 75,000 kilograms and has been used in cargo deliveries since the 1990s.

Gen. Tom Lawson, chief of the defence staff, said in a statement that the massive planes allow the military to remain flexible, as they can perform several different operations on short notice.

The Department of Defence said the acquisition project cost (meaning the cost of the plane during its entire lifespan) is estimated at $415 million, with an additional $30 million for 12 years of in-service support.

With the purchase of the additional plane, it is estimated that the RCAF will have at least three C-17s available more than 90 per cent of the time to respond to any type of international or domestic crises, Nicholson said in a statement.

Currently, Canada's C-17s are being used to ferry supplies to Canadian Forces in Kuwait who are participating in Operation Impact. They have also been used to deliver supplies to Canada's CF-18s, which are stationed in Lithuania and taking part in Operation Reassurance in response to the crisis in Ukraine.

The planes have also been used in humanitarian operations, such as in 2013, when they were used to support French troops fighting in Mali.

In addition to Canada, the plane is currently used by the U.S., U.K., Kuwait, Australia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/ottawa-to-buy-5th-c-17-aircraft-1.2155642

 

[Edward Campbell]

Good decision ... let's hope there's room for a 6th C-17 in FY 15/16, and that there's still a "white tail" left.

 

[Bearpaw]

From the announcement of the decision to buy a fifth C-17, it was noted that this would extend the fleet life by 7.5 years.  A little math will show  that this implies an expected life of 37.5 years per aircraft(in a fleet of 5 assuming constant utilization rate). A sixth aircraft would extend this to 45 years per aircraft(using constant utilization rate)----this is much more in line with how the CAF/RCAF
has used its initial Hercules fleet.  For an expected readiness  of at least 90% for 5 aircraft,  a seventh aircraft would be  highly recommended.

Bearpaw

 

[bradley247]

From the announcement of the decision to buy a fifth C-17, it was noted that this would extend the fleet life by 7.5 years.  A little math will show  that this implies an expected life of 37.5 years per aircraft(in a fleet of 5 assuming constant utilization rate). A sixth aircraft would extend this to 45 years per aircraft(using constant utilization rate)----this is much more in line with how the CAF/RCAF
has used its initial Hercules fleet.  For an expected readiness  of at least 90% for 5 aircraft,  a seventh aircraft would be  highly recommended.

Bearpaw

Like you say though, the 7.5 year extension is based on maintaining our current usage, a plan which surely wouldn't stand if we were to buy a 6th jet (and I'm doubtful will even stand for this one). There will never be a shortage of work for the C-17s.

 

[Bearpaw]

I agree with you completely----if you also consider that the initial 4 aircraft  have about 6 years on the clock, we should buy the 8 or 9 aircraft I mentioned in my first post. This may be a bit more than our current needs but in 2035-2045 we might well be looking for more aircraft.
I think the US is making a mistake in allowing the C-17 production line to cease---some type of low-rate terminal production plan would be much smarter.  There will be a demand for these aircraft and parts for the next 50+ years.

Bearpaw

 

[Zoomie]

The USAF is capitalizing on the C-5M upgrade project.  The C-17 is a fuel hog - the updated motors on the C-5M is more fuel efficient.

 

[Cloud Cover]

How is it that Australia can buy 4 C17 with full life cycle cost of 1.6billion AD and we can buy 1 for 1.5Billion CAD?

 

[dapaterson]

How is it that Australia can but 4 C17 with full life cycle cost of 1.6billion AD and we can buy 1 for 1.5Billion CAD?

Different accounting standards.

 

[dimsum]

Good decision ... let's hope there's room for a 6th C-17 in FY 15/16, and that there's still a "white tail" left.

Last numbers I saw were that there were 2 left, assuming Australia takes its 9th and 10th planes.  RAAF Base Amberley's parking is pretty limited already, so it'll be interesting to see where they slot them in.

 

[bradley247]

How is it that Australia can but 4 C17 with full life cycle cost of 1.6billion AD and we can buy 1 for 1.5Billion CAD?

The announced price is $415 million including life cycle costs. That's about on par with what the Austrlaians paid.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/ottawa-to-buy-5th-c-17-aircraft-1.2155642

 

[HB_Pencil]

From the announcement of the decision to buy a fifth C-17, it was noted that this would extend the fleet life by 7.5 years.  A little math will show  that this implies an expected life of 37.5 years per aircraft(in a fleet of 5 assuming constant utilization rate). A sixth aircraft would extend this to 45 years per aircraft(using constant utilization rate)----this is much more in line with how the CAF/RCAF
has used its initial Hercules fleet.  For an expected readiness  of at least 90% for 5 aircraft,  a seventh aircraft would be  highly recommended.

Bearpaw

It probably won't add that much life at all. As I mentioned earlier, the demand far outstrips airlift capacity: there just is too many demands on the fleet for even five aircraft to meet: only at six might the load start to slacken for the fleet. This typical breakdown for the fleet state at any one time:

one for heavy maintenence
one for training
one in "reserve"
one on operations.

So Canada only has one aircraft available to do actual operations. The reserve aircraft is for emergencies and backup for the operational aircraft. A fifth and sixth aircraft really adds greater capacity upfront to the fleet because they will immediately go to operations.

 

[SupersonicMax]

It's actually 3 since you can pull the "reserve" aircraft and the "training" aircraft into operation

 

[bradley247]

This typical breakdown for the fleet state at any one time:

one for heavy maintenence
one for training
one in "reserve"
one on operations.
So Canada only has one aircraft available to do actual operations.

Not quite...Without getting too much into specifics, there is no such aircraft allocation, and it's not uncommon for the majority of the fleet to be operationally employed on any given day (YFR permitting).

 

[SupersonicMax]

I don't think HB_Pencil says there are actual "training" and "reserve" assignment, but rather saying that in general, this is the breakdown of missions for the aircraft at any given time.  Obviously subject to change with the operationnal tempo...

 

[bradley247]

I don't think HB_Pencil says there are actual "training" and "reserve" assignment, but rather saying that in general, this is the breakdown of missions for the aircraft at any given time.  Obviously subject to change with the operationnal tempo...

Yes, what you are talking about is called 'lines of tasking', and without posting specifics, more than one is dedicated to operational missions.

 

[dapaterson]

Not quite...Without getting too much into specifics, there is no such aircraft allocation, and it's not uncommon for the majority of the fleet to be operationally employed on any given day (YFR permitting).

With nothing mentioned in the press about increases to YFR, adding a fifth tail with no increase in YFR will make them all last longer.

(Besides, significant increases to YFR would probably require increases to the number of crews, and I've seen nothing to suggest that)