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

Will the C17s Make it to the Ramp?

Status
Not open for further replies.
DavidAkin said:
Do we know for a fact that the DART deployment was delayed because Canada could not secure strategic airlift? I was not in Ottawa when the DART was deployed to Sri Lanka after the Asian tsunami but my colleagues believe that the delay in deploying the DART was the inability of political overseers to make a decision about the deployment of the DART. In other words, the three-week delay may not have been a problem of procuring a ride for the DART but may have been due to the time it took the Paul Martin cabinet to make a decision.
In other words, even if Canada at that time owned it owns strategic airlift capability, it may still have taken three weeks for DART to deploy.

Consider this story, written by the Star's Bruce Campion Smith, that appeared in the paper on TUESDAY JAN 4 2005:

-----------------------------
DART flying to heart of disaster; Team heading for Sri Lanka's coast Will deliver medical aid, clean water  

OTTAWA -- Canada's disaster relief team - now packing to head to Sri Lanka to dispense medical care, clean water and help with reconstruction - will remain in the stricken country "for as long as it takes," Defence Minister Bill Graham pledged yesterday.
....
After a week of internal debate, Prime Minister Paul Martin yesterday gave the green light to deploy the military's Disaster Assistance Response Team (DART) to the Ampara region on Sri Lanka's east coast.
....
Two commercially chartered Russian Antonov transport jets will depart Canadian Forces Base in Trenton Thursday night, carrying the first load of equipment and personnel halfway around the globe to the hard-hit island nation.

----------------
So my read of Bruce's story is that on Monday, the Prime Minister told the DART to go and by Thursday it was loading into a leased Antonov. That seems to be a pretty quick turnaround.

I had been transferred to Ottawa by the time the DART was deployed to Pakistan for earthquake assistance and, in fact, stood beside then Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre Pettigrew at CFB Trenton as we watched the (unbelievably huge) Antonov land and the DART equipment load. Pettigrew, CFB PA officers, and others said at the time that the Antonov had been 'ordered' within two or three days of its appearance at Trenton and that obtaining the services of the Antonov in a timely fashion had never been an issue.

Perhaps this topic is best kept for another thread ...... it is a "little" off the topic of the current thread, although somewhat related.
It is a very good, healthy debate though ... and one I would love to wade in on, but not in this thread.
 
DavidAkin said:
Do we know for a fact that the DART deployment was delayed because Canada could not secure strategic airlift? I was not in Ottawa when the DART was deployed to Sri Lanka after the Asian tsunami but my colleagues believe that the delay in deploying the DART was the inability of political overseers to make a decision about the deployment of the DART. In other words, the three-week delay may not have been a problem of procuring a ride for the DART but may have been due to the time it took the Paul Martin cabinet to make a decision.
In other words, even if Canada at that time owned it owns strategic airlift capability, it may still have taken three weeks for DART to deploy.

Consider this story, written by the Star's Bruce Campion Smith, that appeared in the paper on TUESDAY JAN 4 2005:

-----------------------------
DART flying to heart of disaster; Team heading for Sri Lanka's coast Will deliver medical aid, clean water  

OTTAWA -- Canada's disaster relief team - now packing to head to Sri Lanka to dispense medical care, clean water and help with reconstruction - will remain in the stricken country "for as long as it takes," Defence Minister Bill Graham pledged yesterday.
....
After a week of internal debate, Prime Minister Paul Martin yesterday gave the green light to deploy the military's Disaster Assistance Response Team (DART) to the Ampara region on Sri Lanka's east coast.
....
Two commercially chartered Russian Antonov transport jets will depart Canadian Forces Base in Trenton Thursday night, carrying the first load of equipment and personnel halfway around the globe to the hard-hit island nation.

----------------
So my read of Bruce's story is that on Monday, the Prime Minister told the DART to go and by Thursday it was loading into a leased Antonov. That seems to be a pretty quick turnaround.

I had been transferred to Ottawa by the time the DART was deployed to Pakistan for earthquake assistance and, in fact, stood beside then Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre Pettigrew at CFB Trenton as we watched the (unbelievably huge) Antonov land and the DART equipment load. Pettigrew, CFB PA officers, and others said at the time that the Antonov had been 'ordered' within two or three days of its appearance at Trenton and that obtaining the services of the Antonov in a timely fashion had never been an issue.

Like Globesmasher, I too think this could be usefully discussed in another thread. 

In some senses it speaks to the question of why some individuals might prefer that there be no assets "Ready, Aye, Ready".  If you have planes, ships and trucks fuelled and ready to go at hours-to-move warning it doesn't leave you much time to conduct an opinion poll, focus group or just call the boss for instructions.  You might actually be called to make a timely decision and live with consequences.

But as noted, this should be another thread - perhaps on the political board.
 
Mr. Globesmasher  . . . . . just out of curiosity . .  from your previous scenario:

What if we had 18 pallets of vitally needed ammunition to deliver to a forward LZ that was 3500' x 90'.  Do you, as the TALCE Commander, want to expose 1 x C-17 once to the risk to deliver that entire load ....

What if you opted for  2 x C17 chalks ?/  Can a 17 with 9 pallets from your scenario be handled by 3500' x 90' ??

Not trying to be picky, but I am curios as to the flexibility the new aircraft provides
 
haletown,

The point would be moot cause, as globesmasher said, the C17 can handle all 18 on a 3500 strip. so yes, the 17 can handle 2 loads of 9 on the 3500 strip.
 
DavidAkin said:
Do we know for a fact that the DART deployment was delayed because Canada could not secure strategic airlift? I was not in Ottawa when the DART was deployed to Sri Lanka after the Asian tsunami but my colleagues believe that the delay in deploying the DART was the inability of political overseers to make a decision about the deployment of the DART. In other words, the three-week delay may not have been a problem of procuring a ride for the DART but may have been due to the time it took the Paul Martin cabinet to make a decision.
In other words, even if Canada at that time owned it owns strategic airlift capability, it may still have taken three weeks for DART to deploy.

Consider this story, written by the Star's Bruce Campion Smith, that appeared in the paper on TUESDAY JAN 4 2005:

-----------------------------
DART flying to heart of disaster; Team heading for Sri Lanka's coast Will deliver medical aid, clean water  

OTTAWA -- Canada's disaster relief team - now packing to head to Sri Lanka to dispense medical care, clean water and help with reconstruction - will remain in the stricken country "for as long as it takes," Defence Minister Bill Graham pledged yesterday.
....
After a week of internal debate, Prime Minister Paul Martin yesterday gave the green light to deploy the military's Disaster Assistance Response Team (DART) to the Ampara region on Sri Lanka's east coast.
....
Two commercially chartered Russian Antonov transport jets will depart Canadian Forces Base in Trenton Thursday night, carrying the first load of equipment and personnel halfway around the globe to the hard-hit island nation.

----------------
So my read of Bruce's story is that on Monday, the Prime Minister told the DART to go and by Thursday it was loading into a leased Antonov. That seems to be a pretty quick turnaround.

I had been transferred to Ottawa by the time the DART was deployed to Pakistan for earthquake assistance and, in fact, stood beside then Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre Pettigrew at CFB Trenton as we watched the (unbelievably huge) Antonov land and the DART equipment load. Pettigrew, CFB PA officers, and others said at the time that the Antonov had been 'ordered' within two or three days of its appearance at Trenton and that obtaining the services of the Antonov in a timely fashion had never been an issue.

Let's put this into a really simple smaller context....

Do we want the police to save money by renting cabs when they have to respond to a 9-1-1 call?

Then why the hell would ask soldiers to call an Antonov (a very large, very old flying taxi) in time of emergency?

The answer is that you give the police the tools they need to do the job on a moment's notice because in their role:
1)  Response time is often critical
2)  They serve in a job that they are willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for the good of others and the least the taxpayer can do is outfit them so they aren't killed by defective equipment.

I should add, I find the term 'toy' to be offensive as well.  Whenever I hear that term I visualize a group of academics/artists/socialites looking down their noses at serving men & women as unworthy of respect, and that truly sophisticated people can solve all problems with high-brow dialogue.  In short, it's a term I associates with extreme arrogance and I hope you choose to reconsider its use in future.


Matthew.  :salute:
 
Haletown said:
Mr. Globesmasher   . . . . . just out of curiosity . .  from your previous scenario:

What if we had 18 pallets of vitally needed ammunition to deliver to a forward LZ that was 3500' x 90'.  Do you, as the TALCE Commander, want to expose 1 x C-17 once to the risk to deliver that entire load ....

What if you opted for  2 x C17 chalks ?/  Can a 17 with 9 pallets from your scenario be handled by 3500' x 90' ??

Not trying to be picky, but I am curios as to the flexibility the new aircraft provides

How much risk will you accept to exercise tactical flexibility with 4 C-17's , costing approx.$180 billion each and reperesenting a large part of the defence budget ?
Me thinks landing at Kandahar International is just about the limit!  :)
 
... also, if you have a limited 4 airframes of one type .... and many more of the other..... do you risk the far bigger, fewer numbered frames or stick with the tried and true?
 
The decison to use the C-17 or the C-130 will depend on the situation at the time and may differ on every occasion.  Saying that KAF is the limit is not realistic in any way shape or form ,IMHO
 
geo said:
... also, if you have a limited 4 airframes of one type .... and many more of the other..... do you risk the far bigger, fewer numbered frames or stick with the tried and true?


You mean the "tired and few" we presently have?  ;)
 
http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/newsroom/news_e.asp?cat=114&id=2426

Nice mug of none other than globesmasher!
 
Baden  Guy said:
How much risk will you accept to exercise tactical flexibility with 4 C-17's , costing approx.$180 billion each and reperesenting a large part of the defence budget ?
Me thinks landing at Kandahar International is just about the limit!  :)

I think you're a couple three zeros the wrong way. The total contract was for $3 billion.  ;)
 
Inch said:
I think you're a couple three zeros the wrong way. The total contract was for $3 billion.  ;)

Would'ya beleive $180 million each ?  :-[

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-17_Globemaster_III

The government had earlier said that it had set aside a budget of $3.4-billion for the project. Out of that budget, it has to pay for the planes themselves -- estimated to be about $1-billion -- and then a host of other equipment, facility upgrades and a 20-year support contract, all of which is needed to train aircrews and maintain the planes.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070201/military_planes_070201?s_name=&no_ads=

 
Hauptmann Scharlachrot said:
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/

Sheesh, I can't believe that they are still trotting out that old Unocal idea as proof of the Afghanistan being connected to oil.  That idea was shot down as unworkable 10 years ago.
 
On the oil pipeline conspiracy theory:

Pipe Dreams: The origin of the "bombing-Afghanistan-for-oil-pipelines" theory
http://www.slate.com/?id=2059487

There is no need for an oil pipeline through Afstan now that the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline is open:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan_pipeline

The government of Kazakhstan announced that it would seek to build a trans-Caspian oil pipeline from the Kazakhstani port of Aktau to Baku in Azerbaijan, connecting with the BTC pipeline, to transport oil from the major Kazakhstani oilfield at Kashagan as well as points further afield in central Asia.

The Great Energy Game
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/biztech/articles/060903/11game_2.htm

...the $4 billion Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline, which opened with much fanfare in July and links Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Turkey. At the ribbon-cutting, the 1,109-mile pipeline was hailed as "the Silk Road of the 21st century," bypassing Russia to bring oil from the world's third-largest reserves in the Caspian to a Turkish port on the Mediterranean, where it can be loaded onto tankers to supply global markets.

Kazakhstan, the largest country in central Asia, has three of the world's richest hydrocarbon fields. One of them, Kashagan, was discovered in the Caspian five years ago. It is believed to rank among the five largest fields on Earth and is expected to start producing in the next few years. Kazakhstan produced 1.2 million barrels a day last year, but it is expected to pump 3 million barrels a day by 2015-almost as much as Iran. Chevron is spending over $5 billion to expand production there, its largest project anywhere. "There are very few places in the world that have still untapped reserves and the openness in the business environment," says Roman Vassilenko, a Kazakh government spokesman. He says 70 percent of Kazakh oil production is owned by foreign companies...

But still, as more oil is pumped out, Kazakhstan must choose between exporting it north through Russia, east through China, or west through an expanded BTC pipeline. The United States is gearing up to make its pitch. Later this month, Nazarbayev will come to the United States for the first time since 2001, visiting the White House and the Bush family compound in Maine. Energy, obviously, will top the agenda...

There is however a long-standing plan for a natural gas pipeline from Turkmenistan through Afstan to Pakistan and (maybe) India.  But that is hardly a vital US national security or capitalist interest.

Turkmenistan: A Pipeline Long In The Pipeline
http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2006/02/b8cadc86-b102-44ea-bce5-6d68c87b6ec9.html

And not likely to be built for a while.

Mark
Ottawa
 
Baden  Guy said:
The government had earlier said that it had set aside a budget of $3.4-billion for the project. Out of that budget, it has to pay for the planes themselves -- estimated to be about $1-billion --

$1.2 billion went towards the purchase of the 4 tails.  The rest went into the project.
 
geo said:
... also, if you have a limited 4 airframes of one type .... and many more of the other..... do you risk the far bigger, fewer numbered frames or stick with the tried and true?


Baden  Guy said:
How much risk will you accept to exercise tactical flexibility with 4 C-17's , costing approx.$180 billion each and reperesenting a large part of the defence budget ?

That's not for me to say.

The TALCE ops staff and SMEs can only advise the chain of command on the risks and capabilities of the aircraft pursuant to the particular mission.  Whether or not the Operational Commander wishes to place an aircraft in harm's way or not for a mission rests with him based on advice and input from his/her staff.

As to whether or not a Canadian CC 177 (of only 4) is flown into austere, FOLs in a combat AOR rests with people who wear 4 rings or some maple leaves on their shoulders.  Not with me.  I don't decide that.

My only decision,as the aircraft commander, rests with whether the aircraft can "physically" operate into and out of the FOL that I have been ordered to fly into.

That's all I can say on the matter of "risk associated with our CC 177s" and how they will be employed in the CF.

edit ... spelling

 
The four tails? So the planes tail has to be bought separately? I dont understand
 
LoboCanada said:
The four tails? So the planes tail has to be bought separately? I dont understand

Its an expression....read "4 aircraft"
 
LoboCanada said:
The four tails? So the planes tail has to be bought separately? I dont understand

A tail is short form for the aircraft...  as in tail number.  So it cost 1,2 billion just for the aircraft.  The rest is training, spares, engineering support etc.

Edit.... cdnaviator beat me by a minute.....wow
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top