Canada and the C17

[Smurfjet]

http://boeingc17.blogspot.com/

I'm surprised this blog has not been discussed here yet.

[grounded]

Very interesting reading. The only problem with buying the IL-76 is that Mr. Harper doesn't want closer ties with Russia. At that kind of price tag, I would think that the forces will be scared to use these machines. Four airplanes is really too small a number to consider. There will be accidents, training and otherwise. How can we afford to fly these airplanes?

[Golden Flyer]

Very interesting reading. The only problem with buying the IL-76 is that Mr. Harper doesn't want closer ties with Russia. At that kind of price tag, I would think that the forces will be scared to use these machines. Four airplanes is really too small a number to consider. There will be accidents, training and otherwise. How can we afford to fly these airplanes?

Good point. Another interesting point would be, our allies (i.e. U.S.). They would'nt be happy with us purchasing products from Russia. Especially the fact that we would be choosing Russia's product over theirs. It is also good to note that Boeing products have a percentage of Canadian content.

[Clodhopper]

Big deal. Would the Americans buy Canadian products if they could get cheaper from Japan, China, Taiwan, Korea, Sudan, Chad, the Vatican?

No. They would go for the best deal. But we always get screwed because of the fear of the big bad Yankees.

I say we go all Russian. A fleet of Flankers, Il-76's, An-124's. It would cost far less than what we have now, and what we propose to use (C-17 and F-35)

[WJflyer]

Big deal. Would the Americans buy Canadian products if they could get cheaper from Japan, China, Taiwan, Korea, Sudan, Chad, the Vatican?

No. They would go for the best deal. But we always get screwed because of the fear of the big bad Yankees.

I say we go all Russian. A fleet of Flankers, Il-76's, An-124's. It would cost far less than what we have now, and what we propose to use (C-17 and F-35)

Parts availably for Russian equipment is a major issue. Look at the case of Germany and their MiG-29's. They had extensive trouble maintaining their MiG's and they were down the road from Russia. The issue still exists today, as India is loudly complaining over the availability of quality spare engines, as apparently, they got some refurbished engines when they were supposed to get brand new engines for their Flanker fleet.

[monkeyspankmasterflex]

The Certification Process is likely more difficult than the blog eludes to. The Ilyushin is designed and manufactured under a different set of standards. Certifying it to Canadian mil standards would likely significantly add to its cost and would also put it out of the running in terms of acquisition time.

They are very cool aircraft though.

[Expat]

WJ,

That is not only related to russian planes.
The Brits bought helicopters, and the Poles F-16s. Both got screwed royally
I think it is high time that Canada got its nose off our neighbor's a*s, and started to deal seriously on the internatiional scene. We have a historic opportunity to link up with the russian plane makers. Bombardier could benefit, as well as Canada.
They have very good planes in Russia.
We are neutral and should play our cards that way. Everytime the US takes us for granted, we get screwed. Only Trudeau had enough balls to stand up, and do business with other partners.


Пока!

[mellow_pilot]

So the IL-76

South African attack helos


A couple of these...


Some German hydrogen feul cell subs?



That'll show those americans we don't need their toys!

[WJflyer]

WJ,

That is not only related to russian planes.
The Brits bought helicopters, and the Poles F-16s. Both got screwed royally
I think it is high time that Canada got its nose off our neighbor's a*s, and started to deal seriously on the internatiional scene. We have a historic opportunity to link up with the russian plane makers. Bombardier could benefit, as well as Canada.
They have very good planes in Russia.
We are neutral and should play our cards that way. Everytime the US takes us for granted, we get screwed. Only Trudeau had enough balls to stand up, and do business with other partners.


Пока!

It is especially worst with Russian birds, because of the design and maintenance philosophy of Russian birds, not to mention quality control.
Russian birds are designed in a way that the field mechanics are not the ones doing heavy overhauls on the equipment. They are not designed with being fixed in the field in mind. When you have to fix something, say a fuel pump on a engine, the Russian philosophy is to replace the entire engine and send the engine back to the factory where it came from. Western birds allow you to replace the fuel pump without replacing the engine.

Your example of the Brits with their Chinooks does not work, as it was a fault of the British. The Chinooks were delivered as specified as they were ordered, but the thing was the Brits kept changing the specifications throughout the construction of the Chinooks, because they suddenly did not want the birds anymore, and were looking for ways out without a penalty. They were forced to take the birds regardless anyways.

And Bombardier? Let's not talk about the "Bombardier Engineering Issues" that occurred the last time the Bombardier licensed produced something for the CF...

[yultoto]

http://boeingc17.blogspot.com/2006/11/w ... oviet.html

[Greg87]

There is of course another option.... I know money is a major issue, but a Canadian company could design and build an aircraft for use in Canada and other countries. If a wealthy Canadian entrepeneur were to re kindle the energy, pride, strenght etc that existed in the '50s, who knows what we could do. Even if it were a partnership between several companies, or even countries, at least there'd be revenue for Canada, along with a brand new aircraft. If the Canadian government is willing to spend a fortune on American aircraft, why not put it into a Canadian company? I know I'm dreaming, but it can't hurt to dream.

Are there any significant aircraft manufacturers in Canada that aren't owned by Bombardier or another country?

[WJflyer]

http://boeingc17.blogspot.com/2006/11/w ... oviet.html

Totally incorrect.

There is a big difference between certified for use, and the current situation with Russian aircraft at the current moment. Product support is extremely good with Western aircraft manufacturers like Boeing, Gulfstream and Airbus. You need a part? Western aircraft manufacturers will get that part to you pronto. No so with Russian manufacturers. The experiences of some of our allies (Germany, Poland, etc) have shown that when push comes to shove, Russian manufacturers are just not as good with product support than Western manufacturers. The CF wants on-demand product support for all aircraft that we fly. Parts have to come in meeting exacting specifications, a problem with Russian aircraft manufacturers, as shown by the experiences of Germany and India. Do you know the reason why Germany sold off their MiG-29 fleet despite how capable those MiG's were? Simple. They struggled to get spare parts for their fleet due to the unreliability of its engines and components, and when a replacement aircraft finally became available for purchase with good product support (The Eurofighter), they dumped their MiG's onto someone else, and decided to solder on in the mean time with old F-4 Phantoms, because their Phantoms had better product support than their MiG's, and that the old Phantom was much more reliable than the MiG. Yes, Russian aircraft are technologically very advanced. But the reason why they haven't garnered much in the way of important deals is that if the country can get Western aircraft, they will because the issue of product support. A airplane on the ground waiting for a part to come in from Vladivostok is no good to any air force in the view of many buyers.

And it is not only with parts; it is with technical support. When say a Boeing 777 breaks down somewhere, and your company is struggling to fix it, they can depend on Boeing sending their top engineers down in assisting you in fixing it, and providing technical support to the day you retire the aircraft and it heads off to the breakers. With Russian manufacturers, you're on your own. You will struggle to get support from Russian manufacturers, as demonstrated in the case of India and their Sukhoi's. When we had initial trouble in introducing the CF-18 into CF service, technicians from McDD came down and assisted us in working out the bugs in CF service. Today, we can still depend on Boeing (the new owners of McDD) to come down when we have an issue with our CF-18's when we can't fix it, and devise a fix for us, and help us implement it. That is what the CF wants and demands, and that is what Russian manufacturers can't deliver on.

Civil certification is a whole lot more different from military certification. If you thought civil certification of aircraft was hard enough, military certification will be a nightmare to you. EVERY BOLT, NUT, AND SCREW HAS TO BE TRACKED TO ITS ORIGINAL SUPPLIER AND THEN EVEN DOWN TO THE ORE THE METAL CAME FROM, and that is something the Russian's don't do. Parts have to meet exacting standards that are more stringent than civil standards. The military has way tougher standards than civil authorities because they know, when push comes to shove, airplanes have to A: work under adversity daily and B: last. Contractors have to meet these specifications or else be rejected from the bid. When someone proposed the CF buying IL-76's, there is a good reason why members on all levels of the CF laughed the guy right out of the room.

[Smurfjet]

Our CF needs transport aircraft, and they need them yesterday, not in 5 or 10 years. As lousy as the deal sounds (Canada's tax payers will fork without vaseline), it is the only available option.
The arguments in favour for Russian equipment are weak. In addition, there is no way that Canada's Military will be the first 'western power' to buy and operate Russian military hardware of this magnitude (not counting Germany).

[WJflyer]

Our CF needs transport aircraft, and they need them yesterday, not in 5 or 10 years. As lousy as the deal sounds (Canada's tax payers will fork without vaseline), it is the only available option.
The arguments in favour for Russian equipment are weak. In addition, there is no way that Canada's Military will be the first 'western power' to buy and operate Russian military hardware of this magnitude (not counting Germany).

And on top of that, the Germans are bailing out of Russian equipment when they can.

[trumpfan]

Right now were still renting monsters from the Ukraine (I've seen them at YEG loading tanks to go to Afganistan) for the price we paid to send those tanks to Afganistan we could have made a dent in the price of one C-17. Our four aircraft (the C-17's) could be put in to the proposed NATO transport pool and if government started thinking like a for profit organization we could be renting our 17's to the? Dutch, Spaniards, Aussies who ever the hell wants to rent them.

Just like a new car the 17's would be easier to maintain, have standard hardware capability with western A/C, not to mention calling tech support and being able to speak english, Boeings tech reps are the best I've dealt with. These A/C will still be flying long after you can't whittle parts for your IL-76's which are a 70's design. And if they don't work out? well wouldn't be the first time we've been screwed on a arms deal.

[yultoto]

Please read:
http://boeingc17.blogspot.com/2006/11/w ... -cost.html

The US Air Force rents out its C-17s on a direct cost recovery basis for about $3 or 4000 USD per hour, as far as I know. This is what it costs them in direct costs.
This does not include the costs of the aircraft, its depreciation, the salaries of the crew etc, which are already paid for by the Pentagon. So when they do decide to rent us a C-17 its a great deal.

What we are going to pay for each hour of a C-17 flight is going to be more around $40,000/hour. One must take the purchase price of the aircraft, add to that the maintenance contract with Boeing, add fuel, parts not covered by the contract, add salaries of the pilots, their travel expenses, the mechanics and their expenses, hangar fees, de-icing fees, landing fees etc.

We rent AN-124s for about $23,000 an hour. One Antonov carries two Leopards.
One C-17 carries only one Leopard.

Each needs to fly about 30 hours to go from Edmonton to Kandahar and back (charters are always round-trip). So if we had our own C-17, it would cost the Canadian taxpayer about 1,2 million dollars to get each Leopard to Kandahar (we better give them to the Afghan army before we leave, or at least ship them back by chartered ship)
Using a chartered AN-124, it costs $690,000 to ship TWO Leopards to Kandahar, so about $345,000 each.

The Antonov 225, of which there is only one in service can carry 5 Leopards. I dont know why we didn't charter it to carry our Leopards. Maybe it would have looked too bad to show that it took 5 C-17s to haul what one single Antonov brought over to Kyrgyzstan.

BTW, does anyone know the official version of why we chartered the Antonov 124 from Edmonton to Kyrgyzstan instead of Kandahar?

Its not like the AN-124 had not been to Kandahar many times before.

[goates]

What if the chartered An-124s aren't available and we want to go somewhere right now? Having our own ability to move ourselves could be kind of handy. Maybe for cases like moving the Leopards we would still go with the Antonov, but supplies we could do on our own?

[shitdisturber]

You may have noticed that the government in Russia is not exactly stable; especially the leader of said government who is notoriously unstable. You're just asking to shoot yourself in the foot if you buy vital supplies and equipment from someone who may be your enemy tomorrow.

[Pygmie]

BTW, does anyone know the official version of why we chartered the Antonov 124 from Edmonton to Kyrgyzstan instead of Kandahar?

Its not like the AN-124 had not been to Kandahar many times before.

Taken right off the DND website:

http://www.combatcamera.forces.gc.ca/ne ... mbatcamera

A Canadian Forces (CF) Leopard C2, part of the first shipment of heavy armoured vehicles to Kandahar, Afghanistan, sits on the tarmac at the Manas Air Base near Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan. The CF is transporting eight armoured vehicles from Canada to Afghanistan through the Manas Air Base as part of Canada’s enhanced contribution to the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF).
The vehicles were flown, two at a time aboard contracted Antonov aircraft to Manas Air Base for the initial leg of their journey to Afghanistan.

The vehicles were transferred, one at a time, aboard U.S. C-17 Globemaster III aircraft at the Manas Air Base for the remainder of their flight. The Antonov is too large an aircraft to land at Kandahar Airfield.

[WJflyer]

CF wants both size and rough field performance. A C-17 can operate from a grass strip that is less than 4,000 ft long with a very reasonable payload. AN-124 can't. IL-76 can, but it carries a lot less. In short, we want the capability to fly a heavy lifter off a runway we just built less than a hour ago, and carry a lot of stuff as well. CF equipment tends to bulk out rather than hit the max weight of the aircraft. We also want to fly into a rough airstrip if we have to.

Just because Boeing will be no longer making the C-17, doesn't mean that production can be restarted. All of the tooling required to build the C-17 is actually owned by the U.S. Government. Only the factory building in which the C-17 is built in is owned by Boeing. When production is finished, the tooling is then removed and stored in warehouses as needed. If the US government later on sees the need to build more C-17's, they can take the tooling out of storage and contract a company to provide the factory space and the labour to build more C-17's.

[yultoto]

IL-76 can, but it carries a lot less. I

The older IL-76 had a payload of 40 tons. The new IL-76MF-90 is a streched version, 6.5 meters longer than the older one, with a payload of 60 tons (vs 77 tons for the C-17). It also has new Perm PD-90 engines that meet ICAO Stage IV noise and pollution standards and that burn less fuel, extending the range with the same tanks. It takes off at 210 tons vs 265 tons for the C-17, a bit smaller but MUCH cheaper, at 50 million vs 300 million.
Many Third World armies have a strategic capacicty we dont thanks to the IL-76 They are operated by the military in Algeria, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, China, India, Iraq, Libia, North Korea, Russia, Syria, Ukraine and Jordan. Cuba may have one also.
Yet not a single "Western" country has a strategic airlift capacity except the USA and, since 2000, the UK. It was just too expensive, and it still is, if we go the Boeing way.
Military Strategic aircraft just dont fly enough for such a high investment. In the civilian World, companies that are able to keep their aircraft flying around the clock are the only ones that can afford new machines. Those companies that fly less hours and keep their machines on the ramp most of the time but cheaper aircraft, that cost more to operate when the do fly, but very little when they sit on the ramp, which is what our Strategic aircraft will do most of the time when not at war.
This is why companies like UPS, Fex-Ex, DHL, Purolator, who only fly a couple hours every night own not brand new 777 and A-330s but mostly old DC-8s, A300B4, A310s, MD11s, 727s, 747-100s. The mechanics have plenty of time to keep them in top shape while on the ramp to assertain that they are airworthy when they do fly.
Our military should have the same approach. Even the US Air Force operates a fleet of 50s vintage B-52s and other machines of the sort. The even purchased Canada's old Boeing 707s when we retired them and converted then into US Air Force ELINT aircraft.
That is why I think we should own, not 4 Boeing C17s like our government wants to buy to please Washington but 8, 10 or even 12 brand new IL-76s.

[shitdisturber]

Military Strategic aircraft just dont fly enough for such a high investment. In the civilian World, companies that are able to keep their aircraft flying around the clock are the only ones that can afford new machines. Those companies that fly less hours and keep their machines on the ramp most of the time but cheaper aircraft, that cost more to operate when the do fly, but very little when they sit on the ramp, which is what our Strategic aircraft will do most of the time when not at war.

That's funny, because our transport pilots and their aircraft fly the most, by a wide margin; of any aircraft in the CF fleet.

[yultoto]

According to this document :
http://www.cda-cdai.ca/pdf/Crisis_Cdn_Sec_Def.pdf in 2004, the Air Force flew its CC-150s, 900 hours per year. Thats less than 2.5 hours per day. A commercial airline with the same Airbus 310, fly theirs over 100 hours a week, totaling about 5000 hours a year. These machines date back to the early nineties and all have about 50,000 hours of flight. Our Forces Hercule, which date back to the mid sixties, which are supposed to be the hightest time military Hercs in the World have about that although they are 25 years older than the A-310s.
So yes, although the CC-150s are the machines that fly the most in the Air Force, as far as airplane usage goes, they are under utilised and spend most of theis days on a tarmac.

[WJflyer]

IL-76 can, but it carries a lot less. I

The older IL-76 had a payload of 40 tons. The new IL-76MF-90 is a streched version, 6.5 meters longer than the older one, with a payload of 60 tons (vs 77 tons for the C-17). It also has new Perm PD-90 engines that meet ICAO Stage IV noise and pollution standards and that burn less fuel, extending the range with the same tanks. It takes off at 210 tons vs 265 tons for the C-17, a bit smaller but MUCH cheaper, at 50 million vs 300 million.
Many Third World armies have a strategic capacicty we dont thanks to the IL-76 They are operated by the military in Algeria, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, China, India, Iraq, Libia, North Korea, Russia, Syria, Ukraine and Jordan. Cuba may have one also.
Yet not a single "Western" country has a strategic airlift capacity except the USA and, since 2000, the UK. It was just too expensive, and it still is, if we go the Boeing way.
Military Strategic aircraft just dont fly enough for such a high investment. In the civilian World, companies that are able to keep their aircraft flying around the clock are the only ones that can afford new machines. Those companies that fly less hours and keep their machines on the ramp most of the time but cheaper aircraft, that cost more to operate when the do fly, but very little when they sit on the ramp, which is what our Strategic aircraft will do most of the time when not at war.
This is why companies like UPS, Fex-Ex, DHL, Purolator, who only fly a couple hours every night own not brand new 777 and A-330s but mostly old DC-8s, A300B4, A310s, MD11s, 727s, 747-100s. The mechanics have plenty of time to keep them in top shape while on the ramp to assertain that they are airworthy when they do fly.
Our military should have the same approach. Even the US Air Force operates a fleet of 50s vintage B-52s and other machines of the sort. The even purchased Canada's old Boeing 707s when we retired them and converted then into US Air Force ELINT aircraft.
That is why I think we should own, not 4 Boeing C17s like our government wants to buy to please Washington but 8, 10 or even 12 brand new IL-76s.

No.

As I said before, CF loads tend to bulk out (we run out of space first) before we hit the max payload weight of the aircraft. Some CF equipment is just too big for the C-130 and IL-76 in terms of dimensions, and that is why we want the C-17: it can carry those items regularly.

Most of the CF aircraft pallets are 108x88 inches, and they have a capacity to hold between 7-10000 lbs and the only restrictions in size are we can't go higher than 110 inches for the Herc and 76 inches for the Airbus. A lot of items are incompatible and are "cargo aircraft only" therefore the Airbus would be a non option.
The average Herc palette I have seen has been around 3-4 thousand pounds. Again, we often bulk out with the C-130 than we weigh out.

An ignored factor and pretty big one, being left out of many articles on the C-17 and Strategic Airlifter Comparisons, is the runway takeoff length. With the purchase of a new lifter, how many Canadian airports can the different lifters can land at?

Airports - with paved runways: total: 508
over 3,047 m: 18
2,438 to 3,047 m: 15
1,524 to 2,437 m: 151
914 to 1,523 m: 247

under 914 m: 77

Airports - with unpaved runways: total: 823
1,524 to 2,437 m: 66
914 to 1,523 m: 351
under 914 m: 406

Aircraft Runway Take off Length % of CDN Airports
C-17 1,064 m 51.089
AN-124-100 2,800 m 1.126
Il-76 1,700 m 35.762

Overseas and in Canada, you will not always have a large international airport to land your lifter at, It makes more sense to me that any lifter purchase will maximize use within Canada, plus many hotspots around the world. C-17 has always been favoured from the start by the military because it only needed a runway as short as a C-130, but could lift a significantly larger load.

According to this document :
http://www.cda-cdai.ca/pdf/Crisis_Cdn_Sec_Def.pdf in 2004, the Air Force flew its CC-150s, 900 hours per year. Thats less than 2.5 hours per day. A commercial airline with the same Airbus 310, fly theirs over 100 hours a week, totaling about 5000 hours a year. These machines date back to the early nineties and all have about 50,000 hours of flight. Our Forces Hercule, which date back to the mid sixties, which are supposed to be the hightest time military Hercs in the World have about that although they are 25 years older than the A-310s.
So yes, although the CC-150s are the machines that fly the most in the Air Force, as far as airplane usage goes, they are under utilised and spend most of theis days on a tarmac.

A more proper comparison is comparing flight usage with the USAF C-5 and C-17 fleet, not the CC-150 Polaris jets. The CC-150 Polaris jets are primarily used for VIP flights, personnel transport, and some light cargo operations. They get used less because of their purpose.

[yultoto]

Aircraft Runway Take off Length % of CDN Airports
C-17 1,064 m 51.089
AN-124-100 2,800 m 1.126
Il-76 1,700 m 35.762

This is exactly the kind of data that made me become so suspicious at all arguments MDN present to justify their wish lists. One can make figures say whatever one wants by just twisting them a little as you just did. I don't know about much, but aircraft, I know well.

The figures you provided here are probably correct except for one thing: the take-off distances provided here for the IL-76 and for the AN-124 are what are needed at their respective Maximum Take Off Weights. The one you quoted for the C-17, 1,064 meters, is only possible at a very reduced take off weight, not at maximum. You should compare apples with apples.
By reducing the loads both the AN-124 and the IL-76 carry, we can reduce their respective take-off distances too.
According the Boeing Website (http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/mil ... erview.pdf) a C-17 loaded with 160,000 lbs payload (they don’t even say if its a Gross Certified Weight) needs 7600 feet, so over 2300 meters.
How many runways does that bring you down to in Canada. Or Maybe we should put the payload the C-17 has on it when it can take-off from 1,064 meters on both the AN-124 and the IL-76 and then see how much runway these two aircraft need.
Disinformation is the norm when it comes to comparing the Boeing C-17 to any possible competitors, which is why I decided to denounce it.