• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Second CC-177 operational

MarkOttawa

Army.ca Fixture
Inactive
Fallen Comrade
Reaction score
146
Points
710
This is quick, after delivery (usual copyright disclaimer):
http://www.cbc.ca/cp/Atlantic/071023/t102311A.html

FREDERICTON - One of Canada's new heavy-lift aircraft for the Canadian Forces is making quick work of transporting equipment from Canadian Forces Base Gagetown in New Brunswick to a training exercise in Alberta.

The new CC-177 Globemaster is an imposing site at the Fredericton airport where two air defence anti-tank systems have been loaded for the flight to Cold Lake, Alta.

The military took ownership of the huge aircraft last Thursday - the second of four it will own by next April.

Aircraft commander, Maj. Jeremy Reynolds says when compared to the old Hercules aircraft, the Globemaster allows him to move more than twice the payload, over a longer distance, and in a shorter amount of time.

The Globemaster has a wingspan of almost 52 metres.

Reynolds says despite their size, the new planes have the latest computer technology and handle like a small aircraft.

In the past, Canada has often had to lease such aircraft to transport troops and equipment to places like Haiti and Afghanistan.

Update: Delivery news release, Oct. 19:
http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/8wing/news/releases_e.asp?cat=99&id=4597

Mark
Ottawa
 
Is it just me, or did that seem pretty quick compared to receiving the first CC-177? Regardless, it's still a beauty!
 
It only seems that way.  All the inuendo and speculation prior to ordering / receiving the 1st unit just made the clock run slow.
 
an imposing and beautiful site 

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/wp/images/AIR_CC-177_Inuvik_Airport_lg.jpg


 
Nice wintery Canadian Pic..... Very nice!

Thanks Haletown
 
That was possibly the nicest ride out of that crap hole they call Inuvik.
 
Forgive my ignorance, but is the CC-177 the same as the C-17 in the US?
 
Yes, they are the same type of aircraft. Whether or not we gave it some additional features I don't know. But as usual we have to give it a Canadian designation, just as I believe our F-18's are officially known as the CF-188.

Also, I'm just throwing this question out there: Did we purchase enough? I never stop hearing people from other branches of the Air Force complain about either a lack of aircraft or a lack of spare parts, and I never stop reading it in the media. Have we really purchased enough, or is it the absolute bare minimum to meet our needs?

As a taxpayer I don't want to see news stories 5-10 years down the road of us having to lease more Antonovs or hitchhike on other NATO transports because we didn't buy enough of them in the first place.

As a military buff and recruit waiting for acceptance I also look forward to acquiring the best kit possible, and as much of it as possible.

Edit - Just looked at the picture. What a beautiful bird, set her up as my desktop. Would have thought our paint scheme would be a darker grey and much darker lettering. Maybe it's just the light playing with it.
 
We're part of the C-17 global sustainment partnership, so we'll be keeping from overly "Canadianizing" outr fleet (unlike the P3s Auroras that we've thoroughly bastardizedCanadianized).  That should handle spares etc - indeed, the support contract specifies readiness levels.

As I recall, the Brits are getting half a dozen aircraft; the Aussies 4, and NATO has acquired 4.  Check out the Defence Industry Daily site; they've got a good summary of the C-17.

 
start here

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/canada-joining-the-anglosphere-c17-club-02388/#more

good Herc/Jerc summary there also . . scroll down
 
That's a very nice pic. She looks so smooth, curvy, plump and voluptuous, just as I like my women.  ;D

The smaller planes in the pic, look so "small" compared to that big sexy beast.
 
Great pic!  I've been kicking myself since August for missing a free ride on the first one on it's mercy flight to Jamaica! (It was a media photo-op and I picked a great time to be on holidays!)  Maybe next time....
 
Canadian Mind said:
Also, I'm just throwing this question out there: Did we purchase enough? I never stop hearing people from other branches of the Air Force complain about either a lack of aircraft or a lack of spare parts, and I never stop reading it in the media. Have we really purchased enough, or is it the absolute bare minimum to meet our needs?

As a taxpayer I don't want to see news stories 5-10 years down the road of us having to lease more Antonovs or hitchhike on other NATO transports because we didn't buy enough of them in the first place.

No we didn't.  However, all we could do is take the chunk of money that was given to us by the Govt for the "project" and spend it as wisely as we could.  4 jets plus the spares, training and 20 of service support was all we could afford with the money we were given.

It's a very good question and one project managers have to deal with regardless of branch of service.

With only 4 C-17s (CC177s) you will ALWAYS see an Antonov or an Illushyn parked in Trenton hauling cargo for us - we'll never be able to do it all ourselves with only:
5 Airbus
4 C-17s
17 C-130J

Such is life.

4 is much better than 0.

For all those others out there - get ready for delivery of #3 and #4 in April.
Delivery has been delayed by a few weeks as we have managed to wriggle our way into the LAIRCM line - so we'll get our aircraft modded a little quicker than we initially expected, but the final delivery dates will be pushed back a couple weeks - small price to pay in the long run.
 
Are the stretched Hercs still operational?  And since they are, as I understand it, newer airframes, will they be around after the earlier models are replaced?
 
I remember someone stating that the CC-177 did not have IR capability or it wasnt necessary to CF requirements. If that is the case what is the rationale ? Thx
 
tomahawk6 said:
.......... the CC-177 did not have IR capability .................

TH6 - I don't understand your question.
What are you asking?
What do you mean "... IR capability....."?
 
Back
Top