Canada and the C17

[WJflyer]

Watching a C-27 perform a loop is much more convincing than reading CASAs henny-penny assesment of Canadian SAR.

Allow me sir, to submit, that both are half ass assessments

1-Almost any fixed wing can be made to loop or roll in the hands of an experienced test pilot.
2-Show me an SAR mission that had to perform a loop to accoplish the mission.

Can we focus on the C17, and you guys can open a thread for SAR?

Cheers.

A valley shoot may require a sharp climbout at the end of a descent. Not quite a loop, but the 3G airfrfame is better than what CASA offeres in this area.

The reason that FWSAR was brough up was that C-17 procurement suffers for the same problems of any other procurment in the CF and that is interference from outside forces (gov/industry). FWSAR is just one anecdotal example of the problem. The CF needs to be able to draw up requirements without fear of the goverment of the the day introducing political candidates for the job that don't meet said requirements.

If the C-17 is the only contender for the job, based on what the military says it needs, then that's what it needs. F what the politicians think.

Amen. Get the politicians out of military procurement, or any government procurement.

[w squared]

Absolutely. I've had to deal first hand with a lot of half-assed equipment that was purchased with political point-earning and pork-barreling in mind. As WjFlyer said, the Iltis and LSVW are prime examples of why the decisions about purchasing should be made by people in uniform.

Canada simply isn't big enough to have a home-grown arms industry that will supply everything that is needed for the CF. After years of the afore-mentioned pork-barreling, what we do have is in many cases not all that competitive. The other factor is that after decades of ignoring the military's requirements, some items are needed YESTERDAY! To tell a soldier on the ground in Afghanistan that he'll have to wait an extra two years to get a lifesaving piece of kit so that a taxpayer can be 100% certain that the CF got the "best" deal is obscene. this is doubly true when you consider that in many cases the meddling from the whatever government is currently in power ends up with purchasing decisions based solely on the location of manufacture as opposed to putting an effective product in the field.

Military procurement shouldn't be about lining the pockets of the government's political supporters, and should emphasize the equipment that is the BEST fit for the requirements, not the one that is the cheapest.

[monkeyspankmasterflex]

monkeyspankmasterflex wrote:
However do you think it's possible that the 124 is too heavy to land on the newly surfaced runway?


Go here:http://worldaerodata.com/wad.cgi?id=AF60849
You will see the infomation for Kandahar airport.
Under runways, there is a label called PCN, meaning pavement classification number. The PCN is 059FAWT, meaning, meaning flexible pavement, High Pavement subgrade category. To land there legally, an aircraft must have an Aircraft classification number (ACN) equal to or under 059 for that king of pavement. The AN-124, has, for flexible pavement, high subgrade, such as Kandahar, an Aircraft Classification Number (ACN) of 51 (reference:http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/Inter ... Tables.pdf)
According to these numbers, it can land at Kandahar.
As for runway length and width, it is 10,500 feet long, which is adequate for just about any aircraft in the World to LAND on.

That's some good investigating, you're like the online Nancy Drew.

Apparently weight isn't the issue. My point wasn't that I knew weight to be the problem, I was suggesting that perhaps there was a simple explanation as to why the 124 wasn't able to land in Kandahar. I realize you'd prefer to believe the MND is trying to deceive the taxpaying public, but your conspiracy theory doesn't make sense to me. Why would the MND care about having 124's photograghed off-loading the Leopards in Kandahar after they had already been photograghed on-loading them here in Canada? Look up the notams, perhaps there's a simple explanation there.

[CD]

Air force asks for early delivery of C-17s, Chinooks: sources

19 Nov, 2:51 PM

OTTAWA (CP) - National Defence wants to jump the queue to get faster delivery of new helicopters and planes from Boeing Aircraft, and so has asked the Pentagon if it can butt in line ahead of the U.S. military.

"It's being given serious consideration," a Defence Department source said, because the new aircraft would make the Canadian military more self-sufficient in Afghanistan.

Like the Canadian Forces, the Pentagon is also expecting delivery of new C-17 Globemaster transports and CH-47 Chinook helicopters, both manufactured by the Chicago, Ill.-based Boeing Aircraft Corp.

The Defence Department is confident enough the Americans will agree that it has already sent pilots to the U.S. in order to begin flight training on the massive C-17s.

A similar arrangement with the U.S. Army to place Canadian pilots with American Chinook squadrons was proposed in September, but is still being negotiated, said defence industry sources who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Preparations for operating the new aircraft are underway, even though the Conservative government has yet to sign formal contracts with Boeing Corp.

For years, the Canadian army has been unable to transport solders and equipment to the world's trouble spots, or to send them into battle on helicopters, because it lacks aircraft, relying instead on arrangements with other militaries.

A spokesman for the Canadian air force would not confirm or deny the queue-jumping request, saying only that officials are doing everything possible to speed delivery, given the urgent need to support operations in Afghanistan.

"What I can tell you is that we're currently in contract negotiations, trying to get as aggressive a delivery schedule as we can for the aircraft," said Capt. Jim Hutcheson.

Defence sources say one or two C-17s could be in Canadian hands by June of next year rather than late 2008, as had been originally planned.

The advanced timeline for new helicopters was less clear, but it would likely be well ahead of the 2012 delivery initially cited.

The Defence Department needs the helicopters to get its soldiers in Kandahar off roads that are frequently laced with improvised explosive devices.

Hutcheson confirmed that two Canadian pilots are currently being trained on the four-engine C-17 cargo plane, which can haul 77,500 kilograms of equipment, including battle tanks, or carry as many as 100 troops.

They're expected to be fully qualified by next month, when two more Canadians will take up the training, he said.

Talks are also underway with the Americans "about giving our pilots some Chinook training," Hutcheson said in an interview.

A defence analyst said he's confident the Pentagon will accept the queue-jumping proposal, noting that Canada's urgent need for new heavy artillery was met in much same way, with a direct government-to-government purchase from the U.S. Marine Corps.

"Our American friends and colleagues realize the importance of these air assets and will do what they can to get us our own aircraft as quickly as possible," said Alex Morrison, president of the Toronto-based Canadian Institute of Strategic Studies.

Constantly providing Canadians and other allies a ride has forced the U.S. to "ration their aircraft," said Morrison.

In June, Defence Minster Gordon O'Connor announced Ottawa would spend $3.4 billion to acquire and maintain four strategic lift aircraft.

Shortly after, a notice appeared on the government's purchasing website saying it intended to negotiate directly with Boeing, unless another supplier could demonstrate it met the requirements.

In addition, Ottawa will spend $2.7 billion to buy and maintain 16 Chinook helicopters.

[yultoto]

The most ironic thing is that the CF never wanted the Buffalos in the first place. They were imposed on the CF by Canadian politicians when the US army cancelled its Buffalo order after the Pentagon limited the size of fixed wing aircraft the US army could operate. Someone just handed the Buffalo manual to the Air Force procurement people in HQ and told them they had X days to write up how great this aircraft was and why they wanted it. And that it how it came to be. The eventually CF found a niche for the Buffalo.
Now this aircraft that was never wanted and imposed by politicians, is serving as a model for the future SAR aircraft. They want a new and improved Buffalo, nothing else.

[w squared]

And what's so wrong with that? Given the niche that it is filling, and how well it fills it, I see no problem with purchasing a new and improved Buff. A bit more speed in transit, a bit more capacity for the SarTech's gear, and updated avionics...where's the problem? Or should we be buying IL-76's and AN-124's for this too? I'm sure that the 124 would handle like a dream for SAR support in mountainous areas.

[yultoto]

Absolutely. I've had to deal first hand with a lot of half-assed equipment that was purchased with political point-earning and pork-barreling in mind. As WjFlyer said, the Iltis and LSVW are prime examples of why the decisions about purchasing should be made by people in uniform.

All I was stating is that the CC-115 Buffalo that we are now using as the great SAR machine exemple that is so hard to replace falls under the category of half-assed equipement purchased with political point-earning and pork-barreling in mind.

[yultoto]

If you ask the average guy what his favorite car is, he will tell you X.
If you ask the same average guy if he drives an X, he will say no.

I drive a Toyota Corolla. Why? It was the car that I thought had the best value for money, for my budget and my needs.

Would I be driving a Corolla if Canadian taxpayers offered to buy me whatever car I really wanted? Probably not.

If the MND was handed a budget of X million dollars a year, with which it had to pay salaries and benefits, purchase and maintain whatever equipment it wanted and cover all its costs, it would probably act like the average guy and buy only what it really wanted, needed and could afford.

But that is not the case. When the Canadian taxpayer foots the bill above and beyond the MDN budget and MDN decides what it wants to buy, we get different choices. They want the best money can buy.

I do too but I have a Corolla instead, which is the best MY money can buy.

When the Canadian taxpayer foots the bill and politicians make the decisions for the MDN, we get another choice yet. We get the best political payoff money can buy, which varies according who is in power and what kind of payoff they want.

[WJflyer]

If you ask the average guy what his favorite car is, he will tell you X.
If you ask the same average guy if he drives an X, he will say no.

I drive a Toyota Corolla. Why? It was the car that I thought had the best value for money, for my budget and my needs.

Would I be driving a Corolla if Canadian taxpayers offered to buy me whatever car I really wanted? Probably not.

If the MND was handed a budget of X million dollars a year, with which it had to pay salaries and benefits, purchase and maintain whatever equipment it wanted and cover all its costs, it would probably act like the average guy and buy only what it really wanted, needed and could afford.

But that is not the case. When the Canadian taxpayer foots the bill above and beyond the MDN budget and MDN decides what it wants to buy, we get different choices. They want the best money can buy.

I do too but I have a Corolla instead, which is the best MY money can buy.

When the Canadian taxpayer foots the bill and politicians make the decisions for the MDN, we get another choice yet. We get the best political payoff money can buy, which varies according who is in power and what king of payoff they want.

In the world where people can die due to poor equipment, and lives can be saved with the best equipment, you cannot accept any compromises with military equipment. You get the best you can, not what barely is acceptable.

[yultoto]

In the world where people can die due to poor equipment, and lives can be saved with the best equipment, you cannot accept any compromises with military equipment. You get the best you can, not what barely is acceptable.

The CF crashed 7 Hercules out of 39 purchased, just about all of them fatal. Not a single crash was blamed on the Herc. I aslo think the CF crashed over a dozen CF-18s. One pilot even ejected on the ground after landing because he was going in the ditch. These CF-18s weren't made in Tajikistan as I recall.
The Forces just put a brand new, top of the line, best money could buy, SAR Cormorant helicopter in the drink. The investigation leans towards human error.

Tactical flying is a dangerous and risky job, regardless of the equipment.

Which would be best for Canada? Crashing 2 or 3 IL-76s out of 12 or more (which we could afford for much less than the cost of 4 C-17s), or one or two C-17 out of 4? Because, unless we forget about landing C-17s in Jasper in the dark using night vision goggles to train, doing LAPES drops in the Arctic, dropping LAV IIIs by parachute, and use the C-17s strictly as Glorified CC-150s to fly at high altitude from hard surfaced runway to hard surfaced runway, like the British do with theirs, we will crash them. Its just a matter of time.

Here is another hard question:
Which would have been best? Keeping the SeaKings over 40 years, or getting an equivalent brand new Russian helicopter we can afford to buy now? Are some people going to claim that 40 year old SeaKings are better machines than brand new Russian ones? I guess so, because that is a choice the Canadians have been making since the breakup of the USSR.
I guess the argument about the lives of our pilots requiring the best equipment while putting their lives on the line etc etc is no longer valid when it comes to buying ex Commie equipment.

[tower controller]

Ask yourself one question, would you want to sit on the threshold of the departure runway for four minutes to run up your engines in a combat zone?

Another reason the A124 is not a good choice......

[chubbee]

The Generals/Ottawa burocrats/politicians making the decision to purchase the C-17 do not deserve the automatic respect SAR Tech's get from most people. Nor should they.
It should be possible/acceptable to disagree with the C-17 procurment proccess without having to defend your patriotism or your respect for the boots on the ground troops in the DND.

[WJflyer]

In the world where people can die due to poor equipment, and lives can be saved with the best equipment, you cannot accept any compromises with military equipment. You get the best you can, not what barely is acceptable.

The CF crashed 7 Hercules out of 39 purchased, just about all of them fatal. Not a single crash was blamed on the Herc. I aslo think the CF crashed over a dozen CF-18s. One pilot even ejected on the ground after landing because he was going in the ditch. These CF-18s weren't made in Tajikistan as I recall.
The Forces just put a brand new, top of the line, best money could buy, SAR Cormorant helicopter in the drink. The investigation leans towards human error.

Tactical flying is a dangerous and risky job, regardless of the equipment.

Which would be best for Canada? Crashing 2 or 3 IL-76s out of 12 or more (which we could afford for much less than the cost of 4 C-17s), or one or two C-17 out of 4? Because, unless we forget about landing C-17s in Jasper in the dark using night vision goggles to train, doing LAPES drops in the Arctic, dropping LAV IIIs by parachute, and use the C-17s strictly as Glorified CC-150s to fly at high altitude from hard surfaced runway to hard surfaced runway, like the British do with theirs, we will crash them. Its just a matter of time.

Here is another hard question:
Which would have been best? Keeping the SeaKings over 40 years, or getting an equivalent brand new Russian helicopter we can afford to buy now? Are some people going to claim that 40 year old SeaKings are better machines than brand new Russian ones? I guess so, because that is a choice the Canadians have been making since the breakup of the USSR.
I guess the argument about the lives of our pilots requiring the best equipment while putting their lives on the line etc etc is no longer valid when it comes to buying ex Commie equipment.

1. As we have stated countless times before, we have things called military standards. IL-76 and AN-124 do not meet Western military standards. Getting them to Western certification plus adding military hardware would be cost prohibitive.

2. Not buying needed equipment because it might be lost for whatever reason is just plain silly. Neither combat nor accidental losses are any more acceptable than the other, but losses of ground troops due to lack of support is completely inexcusable. Aircraft are lost through accident, as you pointed out earlier. The CF puts a lot of effort into minimizing that, but it's still the cost of doing business. Your pretty much arguing that Air Canada should not buy new airplanes just because they can loose them in an accident. Shows what lack of experience and knowledge you have of the military.

3. All you have proven is that you are extremely naive when it comes to military hardware and procurement. Russian turbine engines for example are usually slightly heavier and have shorter lives than their Western equivalents, not to mention the increased fuel burn of their engines. It is widely acknowledged that the Russians are at least a generation behind the West when it comes to engine technology. Russian technology, as a package is considered INFERIOR to Western technology. Sure, the Russians may have some areas that they are more advanced than the West, but as a complete competitive package, Russian aircraft and the technology behind them fall behind Western aircraft and technology. The CF, like most other Western militaries emphasizes quality over quantity. The reason why aircraft like the Sea King keep operating for 40 years is because they are high quality products built to demanding standards. Russian aircraft are no where near the quality of their Western counterparts. Not only to mention the lack there of quality of the package coming out of Russia, there will be trouble with integration of a completely foreign piece of equipment. C-17's will be easier to integrate because of the fact the aircraft is Western.

[goates]

Hmm, so we shouldn't buy from the US because we only get screwed over by them and buy from Russia, even though they are still spying on us?? We might as well just go and build our own aircraft at this point.

I don't see how buying Russian aircraft, upgrading them with Western avionics and possibly engines and then certifying them would be much, if any cheaper than just buying C-17s outright. Not to mention training the maintenance crews on completely foreign equipment.

Britain leased 4 C-17s, and is now buying those 4 and adding a 5th on top of getting the A400 later. Seems they were quite happy with them.

Thanks to a couple of Canadian generals I wasn't able to get into the C-17 simulators several years ago (cousin used to fly them from McChord AFB). Maybe we should just get IL-76s to spite the generals...

[WJflyer]

Hmm, so we shouldn't buy from the US because we only get screwed over by them and buy from Russia, even though they are still spying on us?? We might as well just go and build our own aircraft at this point.

I don't see how buying Russian aircraft, upgrading them with Western avionics and possibly engines and then certifying them would be much, if any cheaper than just buying C-17s outright. Not to mention training the maintenance crews on completely foreign equipment.

Britain leased 4 C-17s, and is now buying those 4 and adding a 5th on top of getting the A400 later. Seems they were quite happy with them.

Thanks to a couple of Canadian generals I wasn't able to get into the C-17 simulators several years ago (cousin used to fly them from McChord AFB). Maybe we should just get IL-76s to spite the generals...

Not only that, another issue yultoto does not see is what looks good on paper is not the same as in real life. For example, on paper the Russian T-72 tank is an excellent tank, but in real life, the tank's fire control computer is completely rudimentary, the driver hatch and controls for the tank are designed for a midget, and finally the tank's autoloader is firstly unreliable and prone to cooking off ammunition if the tank is hit, but also it is placed in a manner that could take off the tank commander's arm if he is not careful.

[yultoto]

if you go here http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/news/c ... 0/03_e.asp
on the MDN Website, you will see a page called "Equipment & Capabilities"

More subtle deception

In the article, there is the following picture
of a Taurus behind a Boeing C-17, with the following caption underneath it :

"TA Canadian Taurus, Armored Recovery Vehicle weighing nearly 100,000 lbs is delivered at the Kandahar Air Field by a C-17 transport aircraft. Photo: Sgt Penney, DND"

The Taurus, along with a Leopard, travelled 10,000 km from Edmonton to Kyrgyzstan on an Antonov 124, made the last hop over the Kyrgyz/Afghan border on a C-17, but all you ever see is the C-17.

Leopard to Kandahar = C-17
Taurus to Kandahar = C-17

That is the message they want People to hear.

[mellow_pilot]

What the hell is MDN? I'm sure you meant to say the Ministry of National Defence (MND), which would still be wrong as in Canada we have the Department of National Defence (DND).

It's hard to take your argument seriuosly when you can't get the name right. Goes to credibility.

[shitdisturber]

What the hell is MDN? I'm sure you meant to say the Ministry of National Defence (MND), which would still be wrong as in Canada we have the Department of National Defence (DND).

It's hard to take your argument seriuosly when you can't get the name right. Goes to credibility.

Yes and no. While I disagree with pretty much everything he's said in this thread; as a former member of our military I think our guys should get the best period, he's not totally wrong.

The Department of National Defence, falls under the Ministry of National Defence; the french version of which is MDN (Ministere du Defence Nationale). I may be a bit off on the spelling, I never paid too much attention to the other half of everything we got all nice and bilingual.

[mellow_pilot]

There's a minister of defence, but no mdn/mnd. DND is the official title. Perhaps it was not so in the past, but it's been that way for probably more than 10 years now.

From: http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/about/index_e.asp

The Defence Portfolio

The Defence Portfolio comprises the Department of National Defence, the Canadian Forces and a number of related organizations, all of which are the collective responsibility of the Minister of National Defence. (Read More)

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/Portfolio/index_e.asp

[monkeyspankmasterflex]

I believe Yultoto was referring to Mr O'Connor, the Minister of Nat'l Defence (MND/MDN).

Subtle deception? The article associated with the picture is titled New Airplanes, Helicopters for Canada's Airforce. Doesn't it make sense that they would want to use a picture of an aircraft that they're acquiring? No attempt at deception IMHO.

Here's one from the Ed Sun that'll make you happy though Toto...

[mellow_pilot]

if you go here http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/news/c ... 0/03_e.asp
on the MDN Website, you will see a page called "Equipment & Capabilities"

[costermonger]

That is the message they want People to hear.

Dude, I don't mean to be rude, but when you're taking a farking caption on a farking website and coming to the conclusion that it's some vast military conspiracy against Antonov, well, maybe it's time to step away from the interenet for a while.

I mean seriously.. The caption describes what's happening in the picture. There's no reason to add extra information, and even if they did I doubt very many people (I'd say nobody, but obviously *some* do) would care care that the C-17's didn't make the complete trip. Seems perfectly reasonable, considering they're not our aircraft.

[WJflyer]

yultoto, I got no clue what the heck your on, but please, make sure you are not using any mind-altering substances BEFORE you use the internet... ok?

[Smurfjet]

Hey mellow_pilot, what happened to

Dyslexics of the world... UNTIE!

?

[Expat]

It is funny to see how people in Canada think about what is happening here in Af. Russian planes are everywhere, in Kabul and all regions. Governments and the UN are using them, contractors also. Everyone want to save money, and these planes with ukrainian or russian crews are cheap to operate. They can land anywhere, they can be fixed anywhere.
We also have a bunch of South African operated Beechcraft, but these guys operate on a very strict set of SOPs, and cannot fly half the time. The Russians fly anytime anywhere, using GPS.
After all, this is a war theatre, and ICAO standards are not required.
It is funny to see the russian pilot having a smoke under one wing, while the other is getting fuelled!