They're on their way!!!!

mellow_pilot · Post by **mellow_pilot** » Thu Apr 05, 2007 10:32 am

http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/newsro ... 14&id=2921

All the pieces are falling into place for Canada to receive its first Globemaster III C-17 strategic airlift aircraft. At a ceremony at the Boeing plant in Long Beach, California yesterday, the four major sections of the first of four C-17 strategic airlift aircraft destined for 8 Wing Trenton were joined together before an enthusiastic crowd of Canadian military and civilian dignitaries , Canadian media, and several hundred cheering Boeing employees.

Two Canadian Air Force officers, Colonel Tom Lawson, Commander of 8 Wing Trenton and Brigadier-General Yvan Blondin of 1 Canadian Air Division in Winnipeg, had the exciting task of ceremonially joining the four major sections of the aircraft together, under the watchful eye of Boeing executives. Ron Marcotte, Vice President and General Manager of Boeing's Global Mobility Systems, and Dave Bowman, Vice President and C-17 Program Manager looked on as the final fasteners went into place..

"Since this is going to be a Canadian aircraft, it's only fitting that we have a little Canadian labor content in it, so I would ask BGen Blondin and Colonel Lawson [to step up to] the forward splice where they will ‘successfully' and with 'great skill' insert a couple of fasteners to help join the forward and center sections of "Canada One," said Mr. Bowman.

8 Wing Trenton Commander Col Tom Lawson speaking with media in front of "Canada One".

"Canada One", as it is now officially called, is scheduled to arrive at 8 Wing Trenton in August. Col Lawson told the crowd the air base is ready, willing and able to fly "Canada One" when it arrives. He saluted the Air Force pilots, loadmasters and maintainers who have been diligently training on the C-17 over the past several months. They will be ready for their first operational mission the day the aircraft arrives.

pilotbzh · Post by **pilotbzh** » Thu Apr 05, 2007 10:57 am

keep the smile on you face, it's your taxes at work. I still think that a fleet of 747-400 with enlarge cargo door could have done a better job for less than half the price tag,

Maximum payload capacity of the C-17 is 170,900 pounds,
With a payload of 130,000 pounds and an initial cruise altitude of 28,000 feet, the C-17 has an unrefueled range of approximately 5,200 nautical miles.The original specification from McDonnell Douglas defined a service life of 30,000 hours.

The 747-400F can go father with about twice the load and lower maintenance cost.

Pretty expensive machine just to be able to land on 3000fx90ft runways, they would be better to improve all runways in Canada to accommodate the 747.

Localizer · Post by **Localizer** » Thu Apr 05, 2007 11:36 am

I don't think you'd wanna be talking the 47 in and out of shitty strips in the middle east. Besides the C-17 can also land on off strips .. and with this being the military using them, that is sometimes worth its weight alone.

Don't you think its time we sink a little money into our military? ... Or would you prefer to see our troops walking the desert with green camo?

Cheers,

Loc

mellow_pilot · Post by **mellow_pilot** » Thu Apr 05, 2007 11:36 am

It's not the Canadian runways they're worried about.
You can't airdrop anything from a 47. (except maybe water, nod to the tanker guys)

YYZ_Instructor · Post by **YYZ_Instructor** » Thu Apr 05, 2007 12:45 pm

How about not buy anything and put the money into the big deficit of the health system?

Goose757 · Post by **Goose757** » Thu Apr 05, 2007 12:52 pm

Holy crap. Look at the size of these things!!!

wallypilot · Post by **wallypilot** » Thu Apr 05, 2007 1:46 pm

I have to say that despite my general aversion to huge military spending, this is a good move. Our lack of strategic airlift is embarrassing. If we as a country are going to do missions such as Afghanistan, personally, i don't want to have to rely on chartered heavy lift if the troops need something short notice.

On the same note, it would be nice to see strategic air support under Canadian control as well, but i guess that is a ways off. I just think if we are going to heading out and doing these missions, we need to offer a complete package. Either that, or don't do them.

pilotbzh · Post by **pilotbzh** » Thu Apr 05, 2007 2:50 pm

I wouldn't want to be dropped from that thing, that's what Hercules are for.
4 plane to be use for strategic air lift is a joke one of them will be use in training, one down for maintenance one stand by for emergency and the last one maybe operating somewhere....

http://boeingc17.blogspot.com/2006_12_31_archive.html

not from me but interesting....

wallypilot · Post by **wallypilot** » Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:15 pm

Aren't they getting herc's as well?

Crazymax · Post by **Crazymax** » Thu Apr 05, 2007 10:23 pm

pilotbzh wrote:keep the smile on you face, it's your taxes at work. I still think that a fleet of 747-400 with enlarge cargo door could have done a better job for less than half the price tag,

I doN,t think the 747 has the same capabilities than the C-17... In fact, I'm pretty sure it doesn't. How many times have you seen a 747 land/take off from sand strips at +40 on 3500 ft....

Max

tellyourkidstogetarealjob · Thu Apr 05, 2007 10:36 pm

You need ground handling equipment to get freight into most passenger designed aircraft.

Military freighters need to be able to load/unload without any specialised machinery. That's why they all have similar rear entry ramps.

Localizer · Post by **Localizer** » Thu Apr 05, 2007 10:57 pm

Its about time we spend $$ on the military people. Give it a rest ... they've gone without for a long time .. (thanks to the Liberals) ..

Cheers,

Loc

john_brown · Post by **john_brown** » Thu Apr 05, 2007 11:36 pm

Tui · Post by **Tui** » Fri Apr 06, 2007 3:05 pm

swede · Post by **swede** » Fri Apr 06, 2007 8:51 pm

john_brown wrote:

That is aawesome