Canada and the C17

[w squared]

Most people don't have a clue about the difference between peacekeeping and peace support operations. Or chapter six versus chapter seven. Or a NATO mission versus a UN mission. Or what MOOTWA is (even though it's a strictly US term).

If you send "peacekeepers" overseas that aren't prepared to fight if need be, you're eventually going to end up with a lot of dead "peacekeepers"...and potentially ugly consequences

You're quite right, WJFlyer. The Medak Pocket is a prime exaple of what can happen...and how lucky we as a country were. The fact that the PPCLI was made up of professionals that believe in training for war saved us from a rather different outcome.

Prior to developing their own pet theories about asking men and women to risk their lives on missions that feel warm and fuzzy, people should read a few books written on the topic. "Shake Hands With The Devil" by Romeo D'Allaire, "Ghosts of Medak Pocket" by Carol Off, and to a lesser extent Lew Mackenzie's book, "Peacekeeper: Road to Sarajevo".

You might ask what all this has to do with C-17's? It's a piece of kit. If you cheap out on kit, it has consequences. If we as a nation want to ask people to risk their lives to accomplish things that we've identified as important, we owe it to them to provide the tools to do the job effectively.

[yultoto]

Those who best know the problem/issue should decide it. It's called efficiency, not facism.

You want to let joe-public, who's afraid of flying on AC, decide what to buy to fill Canadian airlift requirements? Better yet, let a politician worried about getting elected next year in the Mirabel area decide what airplane to buy for the CF. Are you new? Do you not see the conflict of interest in allowing political interference in procurement?

I'm glad you said that.

Lets hear it straight from General Rick Hillier.

On November 22 2005, General Rick Hillier, Chief of the Defence Staff, and Defence Minister BillGraham gave a press conference on the Governments’ intention of purchasing tactical aircraft. It can be read in full here:

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/v ... sp?id=1819

Here is a partial transcript of the conference, which is titled: Tactical Airlift Fleet Announcement

Question: (Inaudible) to do the job of three or four Hercules, why not take one Boeing C-17?

Gen Rick Hillier: Quantity has a quality all of its own. We have a direction in the defence policy statement to run two major missions abroad plus many of course smaller ones. We have to be prepared to respond to at least one national disaster or tragedy and in order to be able to do that in various places around the world, let's say one mission in Africa, one mission in the Far East or the Asian perimeter such as East Timor and a mission here in Canada, plus normal training and bringing forth the air crews and the airplanes, you have got to have a number that allow you to do that business and that number of course is what leads us to go about 16 aircraft right now. So it is quantity as a quality all of its own in this case.

A few months later, on February 24 2006, General Rick Hillier gave a speech at the Conference of Defence Association Annual General Meeting in Ottawa. The full speech can be read here:

http://www.cda-cdai.ca/CDA_GMs/AGM69/Hillier.pdf

Here is what he had to say about Canada’s priorities in military procurement:

Transformation includes more than a vision, principles and organizational change no matter how much those three things are needed. It also needs capabilities to ensure that the organization and the right people in it with the right skill sets are matched to the right equipments for success and those capabilities demand many things for us to be successful but let me speak briefly to four.
One: clear priorities. Since everything we do will never be affordable, let there be no doubt in any plan we can bring forth that we have a responsibility to our political masters in the country of Canada to articulate clearly the priorities that we see from the military side. In the plans that we bring forth airlift will be line 1. Without the replacement of the C-130 Hercules in the very near future we run a risk that that fleet will end up grounded and our ability to conduct operations significantly constrained or stopped internationally or domestically. In the triage of military life, this is urgent. We have just grounded our second out of 32 aircraft permanently and many others are moving rapidly towards that fate. Our aircraft are high hours usage – many in the 40,000-hour bracket plus. And we have become world leaders with that fleet in a place where we really do not want to be world leaders.
We need a fixed wing search and rescue aircraft to help replace some of the Hercules and the Buffalo aircraft itself for those life and death operations in Canada. We need a heavy lift helicopter for both domestic and international operations because that is what the demand calls for and we need the guaranteed strategic airlift. Airlift in all our military planning occupies line 1.

- In November 2005, General Hillier clearly did not want Boeing C-17s.

- In February 2006 he still only wanted tactical airplanes, heavy lift helicopters and a SAR fixed wing replacement. As far as Strategic airlift, all he wanted was “guaranteed strategic airlift”, something a SALIS or Skylink type contract would have provided. See:

http://www.sfu.ca/casr/bg-airlift-nato.htm and http://www.sfu.ca/casr/bg-airlift-update.htm

- On February 6th 2006, Stephen Harper became Prime Minister of Canada.

- On March 6th 2006, Canada joined SALIS, apparently meeting what General Hillier needed as far as "guaranteed strategic airlift"

- On April 5th and 6th 2006, CADSI (https://www.defenceandsecurity.ca/public/) organised its annual CANSEC military show at Ottawa (https://www.defenceandsecurity.ca/publi ... nts.cansec) where a Boeing C-17 was on display.

- In June 2006, the Canadian Air Force had written in record time a Statement of Operational Requirements (SOR) for 4 Boeing C-17s (http://www.forces.gc.ca/admmat/dgmpd/ac ... _sor_e.pdf) Read about it in this Blog at:http://boeingc17.blogspot.com/2006/10/s ... ement.html

- In July 2006 the ACAN for the single source purchase of 4 Boeing C-17s is published on MERX (http://www.sfu.ca/casr/ft-c17-acan.htm)

- In August 2006 Public Works announces that no other manufactures met the required specifications for the Strategic Aircraft other than Boeing and that the latter would be awarded the contract. Even now, 4 months later, the names of the companies that challenged the ACAN for the Strategic Airlift have so far been kept secret, as well as the basis for their rejection. So much for transparency and fair and open processes.
(http://news.gc.ca/cfmx/view/en/index.js ... eid=232429)

So between February 2006 and August 2006, in six months, the Canadian Air Force went from not needing or wanting any Boeing C-17s to ordering 4 of them from Boeing. And the opposition stayed silent, mostly complaining about not getting their share of industrial benefits http://boeingc17.blogspot.com/2006/11/t ... trial.html

Now, who really decided the CF needed Boeing C-17s? The Military experts (Hillier) or the Bush Brown Nosing Politicians (Harper)?

[w squared]

You want to know what the real difference is, Yultoto? Once Harper was in power, there was a chance that Canada's civilian government might actually spend the money needed to provide the tools necessary to perform the roles they assign to the military.

After 15 years of non-stop annual "peace dividend" budget cuts, can you blame the military for being a little shy around the Liberals when it comes to asking for equipment that has a high per-unit sticker price? Getting procurement spending approved has become so difficult that many of those responsible for writing procurement planning purposely add "fat" into their proposal so that there is something to trim when the inevitable directive comes to cut the proposal back by 15 or 25%.

Just because General Hillier stated that replacing an existing piece of equipment that is ten years beyond where most countries would operate it to doesn't mean that it's the only need that the CF has for transport aircraft purchasing.

And are you so bloody myopic that you can't see the difference between an organic strategic lift capacity and the combination of tactical airlifters and waiting in line for our turn with leased commercial aircraft? Can you seriously say that you don't see the need for strategic airlift? I'm sure that the troops on the ground will understand when they're told that we can't deliver the supplies and equipment they need because civilian contractors refuse to fly into the airfield that they're located near. Whatabout LAPES and parachute delivery? When's the last time you saw a civilian aircrew competent in those methods?

The C-17 is unique in that it's a modern aircraft that is a TRUE strategic airlifter in terms of payload and range that still retains some rough field capability. Why do you have such a hard time understanding that?

There's a common misconception among the uninformed that Russian/updated Soviet equipment is just as good or better than NATO/US equipment. This overlooks three critical points:

#1. The overall design philosiphy of equipment from ex-WarPac countries is fundamentally different. These designs are limited by the need to be operated by conscript armies with a maximum of three year terms. This limits the complexity of the systems that each soldier/sailor/airman operates. It also means that those enlisted personell servicing the equipment are essentially removing the broken parts and inserting new ones, as opposed to effecting repairs.

#2. The Soviet military's tactics grew out of their successes on the Eastern Front in WWII. We're talking about herding infantry through uncleared minfields to avoid allowing the enemy time to dig in or prepare counter-attacks. This means that survivability has a very low priority in the fundamental designs.

#3. NATO equipment is built to standards that make joint operations with our allies possible. If we start buying Russian equipment en masse, we turn our back on this co-operative concept.

Lots of Russian equipment looks great on paper (or on sites authored by enthusiasts that have never operated a single piece of it). It's a whole different story when you talk to those people that have spent some time working with equipment.

There are certainly a few niches where Russian/Soviet designs have broken new ground...but the overall military usefulness of the equipment that inhabits those niches is generally limited.

[WJflyer]

Easy answer from a DND insider: The CF has been long studying the possibility of purchasing strategic lift for a long time through the Future Strategic Airlift (FSA) study, since the mid 1990's, and through those studies (I have access to those studies done in the past), the CF had identified two options for strategic lift: The C-5 Galaxy (no longer in production) and the C-17 Globemaster III. The government at the time, the Liberal government, decided not to follow or even read the DND study for strategic lift. Former Liberal Defence Minister John McCallum killed any further studying of strategic lift and the remote possibility that the C-17 would be purchased by the government. The issue came back to the forefront in the wake of the 2004 Tsunami crisis, which I explained earlier. General Rick Hillier I will state is not opposed to the purchase of C-17's; if he can get strategic lift, he will take it. He just wants more speed with the Hercules replacement.

[w squared]

There you go, Yultoto. One general answer, one specific answer. WJFlyer is obviously a lot closer to the current happening in the puzzle palace. You have my sympathies, WJFlyer

[mellow_pilot]

Ya, clearly not a case of either or. Hillier probably figured that money would be coming for only one project, cc-130 replacement was more important. Lo and behold, he got both!!

The media figured we were replacing Hercs with c17 was the plan and Hillier obviously wanted to kill that notion outright.

I can't believe someone is seriously quoting an SFU website on defence propositions. Those are pies in the sky, not airplanes. The boys down at SFU have too much time and weed on their hands. I recall something about using Challengers and Auroras for FWSAR coming out of that opium den a while back. They have some decent ideas every once in a while, but most of the time it's tripe. More often than not it's just a forum for some kid to demonstrate his photoshop skills.

[yultoto]

Just because General Hillier stated that replacing an existing piece of equipment that is ten years beyond where most countries would operate it to doesn't mean that it's the only need that the CF has for transport aircraft purchasing.

And are you so bloody myopic that you can't see the difference between an organic strategic lift capacity and the combination of tactical airlifters and waiting in line for our turn with leased commercial aircraft? Can you seriously say that you don't see the need for strategic airlift? I'm sure that the troops on the ground will understand when they're told that we can't deliver the supplies and equipment they need because civilian contractors refuse to fly into the airfield that they're located near. Whatabout LAPES and parachute delivery? When's the last time you saw a civilian aircrew competent in those methods?

The C-17 is unique in that it's a modern aircraft that is a TRUE strategic airlifter in terms of payload and range that still retains some rough field capability. Why do you have such a hard time understanding that?

There's a common misconception among the uninformed that Russian/updated Soviet equipment is just as good or better than NATO/US equipment. This overlooks three critical points:

#3. NATO equipment is built to standards that make joint operations with our allies possible. If we start buying Russian equipment en masse, we turn our back on this co-operative concept.

Lots of Russian equipment looks great on paper (or on sites authored by enthusiasts that have never operated a single piece of it). It's a whole different story when you talk to those people that have spent some time working with equipment.

There are certainly a few niches where Russian/Soviet designs have broken new ground...but the overall military usefulness of the equipment that inhabits those niches is generally limited.

I guess if Harper told Hiller he would get F-117s, nuclear submarines and a nuclear powered aircraft carrier, without even having to ask for them, he would not be opposed either. Who would, except those that would have to pay for them: the dumb, stupid and ignorant taxpayers like me.

In Feb 2006 Hillier listed his needs and the C-17 was not one of them. In his press conference, he did not say "We want C-17s but cant afford them right now". He said he prefered quantity over a few C-17s.

Second, Skylink offered the CF to base at Trenton 2 AN-124s and 2 IL-76 for the CFs' exclusive use at 400 hours per aircraft for 42 million dollars a year. That, in addition to replacing the CC-130s would have given the CF all the airlift capability it needed and more. The C-17s are going to cost over 200 millions dollars a year over 20 years, maybe up to 250. Pray we dont ever loose one or two in crashes before the 20 years are up.

Third, as far as refusing to go anywhere, for the time being its the CF that refuses to go to Kandahar with their CC-150 Polaris because these aircraft have no countermeasures. Civilian contractors, who have none, fly into there on a daily basis. No CF military personnel will fly into Kandahar unless he is flying an aircraft that not only has countermeasures, but armour, and on top of that they wear helmets and flack jackets. The civilian contract pilots laugh at them. This is the real World. Same for helicopter pilots. There are civilians out there flying for NATO with none of these goodies. If the troops on the ground want something delivered, they probabbly prefer it to arrive on a civilian operated aircraft. Where are our CH-146 helicopters? They are in Canada because the CF put so much junk on them to protect our brave men and women that they are overloaded to the extent that the density altitude of Afghanistan makes them useless. Yet the same types (Bell 412EP) are used as heli skiing helicopters in high altitude environments with 15 passengers. But these dont have armour, countermeasures, FLIRS, HUDS, Cockpit and Flight Data recorders and all sorts of non-sense. This is normally the kind of stuff you put on larger machines, not light aircraft such as a 412. They even have a flight engineer on the CH-146. In fact they have them too on the CC-130s, although all of these were upgraded to glass cockpits and electronic systems monitoring. And they want two man crew C-17s. The SORs want a two man cockpit but they will probably put a flight engineer in the C-17s anyway. The CH-146s have one. The experts......
So now our CH-146 helicopters are so well equiped, and so well protected, ans so well crewed that they cannot be deployed and our men have to go without. Tell me about the experts.
Thank God there are civilian contractors out there who dont need armour and countermeasures to fly Cessnas.
A Canadian friend of mine went overseas a couple of years ago and was flying US troops between Jordan and Baghdad in an Swaziland registered Lockeed L-1011. They would arrive over the field and circle down and leave in pretty much the same way. On several occasions, people on the ground took shot at them since they often found bullet hole in the aircraft. There were no countermesures or armor. Yet they went in and out regularly. Civilians. DHL flies into Baghdad in cvilian Airbus A-300. In 2003 one was hit by a SAM and came back to land with the left wing on fire. They still fly into Baghdad and still have no countermeasures. So please, save that "only the military will go there" B/S for boyscout campfire stories. I know what its really like. Criticise those Russian and Ukrainian pilots all you want for smoking, drinking and not respecting the rules, but refusing to go anywhere is not something anyone can honestly accuse them of. The CF pilots on the other hand......

And LAPES! Ha! The CF quit doing LAPES in 93 after loosing a second CC-130 in a LAPES excercise. The CF is no longer LAPES qualified and do not think one second that they will do any with the C-17. They will be too afraid of crashing one and having to tell people like me we were right to oppose the C-17.

If any civilian contractor is required to do LAPES delivery with an IL-76, they will train to do it and they will. One does not have to be in the military do do any of that. They will probably do it better and safer than the military because they will do with pilots that have over 10,000 hours of flight in real conditions. In the civilian world, pilots with just 1500 hours fly Navajos and King Airs, not IL-76s or C-17s.
BTW, IL-76s have already delivered supplies to Antarctica bases using LAPES in the past.

An AN-124 is a better stategic Aircraft than a C-17. It flies farther and takes twice the load. The AN-124-150, which is an upgrade of the present AN-124-100, is able to take 150 tons or 3 Leopards tanks, not just 1 like the C-17.
An IL-76 has short and rough field capablities similar to the C-17s, has much more tactical capabilities and the lastest version, the IL-76TF-90 has a 60 ton paylaod.

I dont claim that the Russian aircraft is better than the C-17 in quality. I have over 2500 hours of flying time on Boeings and know and appreciate the brand and the support Boeing customers get (although the C-17 is technically a McDonald-Douglas product I never laid hands on). It is probably the best aircraft I have ever flown.
My claims is that, if the CF absolutly want to operate their own strategic aircraft and not rely on charters, why not spend half the amount and get three times as many aircraft, 12 IL-76 instead of 4 C-17s?. Despite all the IL-76 shortcomings, with Canadian pilots, and Canadian maintenance and Canadian standards, they will be reliable and safe. And they will get the job done, better than with 4 Boeings. The negative things that are most often written about the IL-76s does not concern the aircraft themselves but the shady operators that run them. Give Boeing C-17s to these same people, and they will soon look like IL-76s.

Right now the CF are using AN-124s and IL-76s. They have been for years. So are the UK, the Australians, the French, the Germans, the Dutch, and the Americans. Why are they are good enough to charter but worthless pieces of junk when it comes time to buy?

That NATO compatibility argument is just a nuisance, not an unsurmountable problem. If it was a fighter, it would be more of a problem, but its just a transport.

[WJflyer]

I guess if Harper told Hiller he would get F-117s, nuclear submarines and a nuclear powered aircraft carrier, without even having to ask for them, he would not be opposed either. Who would, except those that would have to pay for them: the dumb, stupid and ignorant taxpayers like me.

There was actually a study done by the government in the 1980's calling for the CF to purchase a nuclear powered submarine for Arctic sovereignty patrol. Likely sources for the submarines were from Britain and France. That idea got nixed when the Liberals came into power.

In Feb 2006 he listed his needs and the C-17 was not one of them.

He did mention repeatedly that reliable, on demand strategic lift is needed for the CF.

Second, Skylink offered the CF to base at Trenton 2 AN-124s and 2 IL-76 for the CFs' exclusive use at 400 hours per aircraft for 42 million dollars a year. That, in addition to replacing the CC-130s would have given the CF all the airlift capability it needed and more. The C-17s are going to cost over 200 millions dollars a year over 20 years, maybe up to 250. Pray we dont ever loose one or two in crashes before the 20 years are up.

The CF wants to own, not lease. We tried leasing a while back, we leased the GTS Katie once. We ran into a dispute with the lessor, and they held our equipment and some of the men that were traveling with the equipment hostage. We had to board and take over the ship by force just to get the equipment back. That is why the CF does not want to lease. The entire saga of the GTS Katie is here:

http://www.amo-union.org/Newspaper/Morg ... /katie.htm

Oh, BTW, Skylink in its offer was subcontracting the job to someone else; this is a situation (especially in issues of major importance, such as strategic lift) that we don't want to run into. If Skylink ran into a dispute with their subcontractor, we (the DND) get screwed.

Third, as far as refusing to go anywhere, for the time being its the CF that refuses to go to Kandahar with their CC-150 Polaris because these aircraft have no countermeasures. Civilian contractors, who have none, fly into there on a daily basis. No CF military personnel will fly into Kandahar unless he is flying an aircraft that not only has countermeasures, but armour, and on top of that they wear helmets and flack jackets. The civilian contract pilots laugh at them. This is the real World. Same for helicopter pilots. There are civilians out there flying for NATO with none of these goodies. If the troops on the ground want something delivered, they probabbly prefer it to arrive on a civilian operated aircraft.

1. Civilian contractors don't have to worry about a bad public image at home because one of their aircraft got shot down, and a good number of CF personnel were killed because it could have been an avoidable situation had that aircraft had a defensive suite.

2. Also, those civilian contractors fly with no insurance into those situations. The civilian people that fly those aren't the best quality of men to do the job, I mentioned a Dutch report complaining about WHY some of the aircraft were grounded by the Dutch because of crew-related issues.

Where are our CH-146 helicopters? They are in Canada because the CF put so much junk on them to protect our brave men and women that they are overloaded to the extent that the density altitude of Afghanistan makes them useless. Yet the same types (Bell 412EP) are used as heli skiing helicopters in high altitude environments with 15 passengers. But these dont have armour, countermeasures, FLIRS, HUDS, Cockpit and Flight Data recorders and all sorts of non-sense. This is normally the kind of stuff you put on larger machines, not light aircraft such as a 412.

This shows what little knowledge you have. Heli-skiing helicopters aren't flying as demanding situations as CF CH-146's are. Civilian helicopters don't have to fly through enemy fire. Civilian helicopters don't have to worry about being shot at with a SAM. Civilian helicopters don't have to fly 20 ft above the ground in zero-zero visibility. CF helicopters will have to face these situations when employed in combat. That is why they need the extra equipment; CF helicopters will fly when civilian helicopters get grounded in bad conditions.

And LAPES! Ha! The CF quit doing LAPES in 94 after loosing yet another CC-130 in a LAPES excercise. The CF is no longer LAPES qualified and do not think one second that they will do any with the C-17. They will be too afraid of crashing one and telling me I was right to oppose the C-17.

The CF is now again LAPES qualified; we did a supply drop for some coalition troops in Afghanistan a month ago with one of our Hercs. It was in the news, and I can confirm that qualification.

If any civilian contractor is required to do LAPES delivery with an IL-76, they will train to do it and they will. One does not have to be in the military do do any of that. They will probably do it better and safer than the military because they will do with pilots that have over 10,000 hours of flight in real conditions. In the civilian world, pilots with just 1500 hours fly Navajos and King Airs, not IL-76s or C-17s.
BTW, IL-76s have already delivered supplies to Antarctica bases using LAPES in the past.

Try getting them to do it under possible enemy fire. They won't. No pilot, short of a suicidal one will risk it, especially if there runs the strong possibility of him being shot at.

My claims is that, if the CF absolutly want to operate their own strategic aircraft and not rely on charters, why not spend half the amount and get three times as many aircraft, 12 IL-76 instead of 4 C-17s?. Despite all the IL-76 shortcomings, with Canadian pilots, and Canadian maintenance and Canadian standards, they will be reliable and safe. And they will get the job done, better than with 4 Boeings. The negative things that are most often written about the IL-76s does not concern the aircraft themselves but the shady operators that run them. Give Boeing C-17s to these same people, and they will soon look like IL-76s.

The IL-76's that operate into Canada operate on a temporary airworthiness certificate; that means that each aircraft is allowed into Canada on a case-by-case basis. Re-certifying them so that they have a permanent airworthiness certificate and getting them to CF standards will cost prohibitive. With Western militaries, the mantra is quality over quantity; we want the best equipment to do the job bar none, and not the second-rate stuff because we can get more of the second rate equipment.

Right now the CF are using AN-124s and IL-76s. They have been for years. So are the UK, the Australians, the French, the Germans, the Dutch, and the Americans. Why are they are good enough to charter but worthless pieces of junk when it comes time to buy?

The UK has C-17's. The Australians as I understand just got their first C-17 as well. The French don't need long term strategic lift as they are waiting for A400M. The same story goes for the Germans (although they are also interested in C-17 as well). The Americans can't get enough strategic lift period to handle all of their needs.

There is one thing that you should learn about Russian equipment: Quality control or the lack of it. It is a well known fact that Russian equipment does not have the same quality as the equivalent Western equipment.

We can rely on the Americans if we need parts to service our C-17's; they are one of our biggest allies. That means they are dependable. The Russians are unpredictable, and parts (if you can get quality parts in quality from them) can be subject to political pressure from them (they can cut off the supply of parts at their whim and any Russian bird we get will be grounded soon for lack of spares).

That NATO compatibility argument is just a nuisance, not an unsurmontable problem. It is were a fighter, it would be more of a problem, but its just a transport.

Shows what little knowledge you have... here's a short list of items that require NATO compatibility in a transport:

Secure, Jam-Resistant Radio Systems (so we can talk with either the transport's escorts or with the airfield it is heading to securely without the possibility that someone else is listening in to us)
Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) Transponder (so when we come into friendly radar range, the guys on the ground and anyone manning say, a SAM battery or a fighter pilot knows we are friendly)
Countermeasures (to improve survivability when we DO get shot at with a missile)

[yultoto]

He did mention repeatedly that reliable, on demand strategic lift is needed for the CF.

Yep, "on demand" as in "charter"

The CF wants to own, not lease. We tried leasing a while back, we leased the GTS Katie once. We ran into a dispute with the lessor, and they held our equipment and some of the men that were traveling with the equipment hostage. We had to board and take over the ship by force just to get the equipment back. That is why the CF does not want to lease. The entire saga of the GTS Katie is here:

Yet the CF leases regularly. Didn't all the Leopards make it to Kyrgyzstan?

Oh, BTW, Skylink in its offer was subcontracting the job to someone else; this is a situation (especially in issues of major importance, such as strategic lift) that we don't want to run into. If Skylink ran into a dispute with their subcontractor, we (the DND) get screwed.

Yet this is exactly the way the Leopards made their way, successfully, to Kyrgyzstan

1. Civilian contractors don't have to worry about a bad public image at home because one of their aircraft got shot down, and a good number of CF personnel were killed because it could have been an avoidable situation had that aircraft had a defensive suite.

True but that is an argument in my favor. You just kicked one in your own goal.

2. Also, those civilian contractors fly with no insurance into those situations. The civilian people that fly those aren't the best quality of men to do the job, I mentioned a Dutch report complaining about WHY some of the aircraft were grounded by the Dutch because of crew-related issues.

So the DND insider/military expert seems to think that military transport aircraft carry any form of insurance? Let me know who insures them so I can sell my shares. I suggest you go check your sources. No military aircraft has insurance anywhere, they are "self-insured".

This shows what little knowledge you have. Heli-skiing helicopters aren't flying as demanding situations as CF CH-146's are. Civilian helicopters don't have to fly through enemy fire. Civilian helicopters don't have to worry about being shot at with a SAM. Civilian helicopters don't have to fly 20 ft above the ground in zero-zero visibility. CF helicopters will have to face these situations when employed in combat. That is why they need the extra equipment; CF helicopters will fly when civilian helicopters get grounded in bad conditions.

So to meet all these military demands, one installs so much equipment on a small machine to the extent that it is no longer deployable in any theatre where the ground troops are deployed? That should keep those aircrews really safe. Thats what they teach at your university?
Civilians are shot at. See http://www.strategypage.com/military_ph ... tack1.aspx about a DHL A-300 shot at in Baghdad.
You can also go here to see a picture taken from a DHL Boeing 727 on final at Kandahar where our Polaris will not dare go, even with cargo only.
http://www1.airliners.net/open.file/0614743/M/

Civilian helicopters do fly in near zero zero 20 feet from the ground. I've seen them do it in the Lower North Shore of the St Laurence River, getting people in and out of remote villages year around in fog and snow storms. They do it without FLIR and HUD.

The CF is now again LAPES qualified; we did a supply drop for some coalition troops in Afghanistan a month ago with one of our Hercs. It was in the news, and I can confirm that qualification.

That is false, and I'd like to see that news. They did some paradrops in Afghanistan, which is not a LAPES. Those they no longer do. Too risky.

The IL-76's that operate into Canada operate on a temporary airworthiness certificate; that means that each aircraft is allowed into Canada on a case-by-case basis. Re-certifying them so that they have a permanent airworthiness certificate and getting them to CF standards will cost prohibitive.

Those that need the temporary airworthiness certificate are the old ones with the engines that do not meet ICAO stage III noise and pollution standards. However, aircraft such as Volga-Dnepr's new IL-76TD-90 were re-engined with Perm 90 engines that meet ICAO Stage IV requirement and do not need any temporary airworthiness certificates to operate in and out of Canada. Those are the IL-76s I am talking about.

The UK has C-17's. The Australians as I understand just got their first C-17 as well. The French don't need long term strategic lift as they are waiting for A400M. The same story goes for the Germans (although they are also interested in C-17 as well). The Americans can't get enough strategic lift period to handle all of their needs.

All of the countries I mentionned have leased AN-124 and/or IL76s in the last 12 months including the UK which operates C-17s. Australia's first C-17 recently made its maiden flight but its still at the plant.

Shows what little knowledge you have... here's a short list of items that require NATO compatibility in a transport:

Secure, Jam-Resistant Radio Systems (so we can talk with either the transport's escorts or with the airfield it is heading to securely without the possibility that someone else is listening in to us)
Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) Transponder (so when we come into friendly radar range, the guys on the ground and anyone manning say, a SAM battery or a fighter pilot knows we are friendly)
Countermeasures (to improve survivability when we DO get shot at with a missile)

All this is just electronics. They could be installed on a Mule if the CF wanted to, let alone an Ilyushin. Canada retrofited Glass cockpits in all of its 60s vintage C-130s and turned a three man crew aircraft into a two man crew aircraft, an extreme modification done at great cost to taxpayers (and then decided to keep the flight engineer anyway for God knows what reason)
The US Air Force operates 1950s vintage B52s. Do you know what kind of wiring, buses and avionics were in those aircraft when they were manufactured 50 years ago? All that was gutted and new ones installed and Abracadabra, its NATO compatible. Why did they go though all that trouble. Because it was more cost efficient to upgrade those B-52s for the occasional use they would make of them, then to have new bombers manufactured at todays prices.

[WJflyer]

Yep, "on demand" as in "charter"

And on demand as in we are first in line with access. With charter, we are often never first in line.

Yet the CF leases regularly. Didn't all the Leopards make it to Kyrgyzstan?

The CF, if you haven't figured it out already, don't want to continue leasing. They want to have the ability to move most of the important stuff themselves. That is why we want C-17's, that is why we are designing the JSS (Joint Supply Ship), that is why we are after a BHS (Big Honking Ship, or a amphibious assault ship). WE WANT TO MOVE OUR STUFF BY OURSELVES.

Yet this is exactly the way the Leopards made their way, successfully, to Kyrgyzstan

And yet it can come and bite us back really easily, if we run into a dispute with the contractor and their subcontractors.

True but that is an argument in my favor. You just kicked one in your own goal.

Nope, you made yourself look like a fool again. The CC-150 Polaris is a glorified civilian bird in military markings. The IL-76's that you are proposing are civilian-spec variants; they have no provisions for the installation of defensive suites. Trust me, me and a few other DND officials checked out one of the IL-76's we chartered. Zero provision. ZILTCH. Nada. Not present.

So the DND insider/military expert seems to think that military transport aircraft carry any form of insurance. I suggest you go check your sources. No military aircraft has insurance anywhere, they are "self-insured".

Military aircraft are supposed to take major risks that could involve the loss of the equipment and its crew; it is in the nature of the job. Civilian aircraft don't take the same risks military aircraft do. As such, when civilian aircraft are placed into these situations, they often go uninsured, meaning we have to pay more to cover the risks, or the type of operators we can charter that are willing to do the job are often sketchy, and not the types you want to trust.

So to meet all these military demands, one installs so much equipment on a small machine to the extent that is is not deployable in any theatre where the ground troops are deployed? That should keep those aircrews really safe. Thats what they teach at your university?
Civilians are shot at. See http://www.strategypage.com/military_ph ... tack1.aspx about a DHL A-300 shot at in Baghdad.
You can also go here to see a picture taken from a DHL Boeing 727 on final at Kandahar where our Polaris will not dare go, even with cargo only.

Afghanistan is a example of freak conditions conspiring together; it is both hot, and extremely high, making deployment there extremely difficult for any piece of equipment. Even the big birds, such as the Sikorsky CH-53 Sea Stallion or the Sikorsky S-70 Black Hawk suffer under these conditions.

Oh, BTW, the CH-146 IS deployable to Afghanistan, the USMC is using their UH-1N's in Afghanistan that have less power than our CH-146 Griffons, and are toting machine guns and rocket pods. There is just a lack of political will to do so.

The military does not like to take excessive risks, without some way of mitigating that risk. We pay others to take the risk under those conditions. And besides, a CC-150 Polaris on approach to Kandahar airbase will pretty much alert every Taliban in the area that either someone important is coming or something there is a lot of guys that can be killed if someone can shoot the bird down. The regular C-130 flight in can hide almost anything that goes in to Kandahar. That is why PM Harper when he went to Afghanistan first flew into a friendly base outside of Afghanistan in the CC-150 Polaris and then hopped into a waiting C-130 Herc into Kandahar.

Civilian helicopters do fly in near zero zero 20 feet from the ground. I've seen them do it in the Lower North Shore of the St Laurence River, getting people in and out of remote villages year around in fog and snow storms. They do it without FLIR and HUD.

Zero-Zero at 20ft under combat conditions (ie: someone taking a shot at you). FLIR allows us to see bad guys that are otherwise hidden by the weather or by the terrain. HUD allows our pilots to pay attention to what's going on outside so that they don't have to look at their instrument panels when they should really be looking outside so they don't crash either into each other or into the ground.

All this is just electronics. They could be installed on a Mule if the CF wanted to, let alone an Ilyushin. Canada retrofited Glass cockpits in all of its 60s vintage C-130s and turned a three man crew aircraft into two man crew aircraft, a extreme modification done at great cost to taxpayers (and then decided to keep the flight engineer anyway for God knows what reason)
The US Air Force operates 1950s vintage B52s. Do you know what kind of wiring, buses and avionics were in those aircraft when they were manufactured 50 years ago? All that was gutted and new ones installed and Abracadabra, its NATO compatible. Why did they go though all that trouble. Because it was more cost efficient to upgrade those B-52s for the occasional use they would make of them, then to have new bombers manufactured at todays prices.

1. The C-130's we upgraded already came with a MIL-STD 1553 databus. That made upgrading easy for us, as we didn't have to install the databus ourselves. IL-76's don't have the databus, and as such, need to have that fitted. I repeated this time and time again, and yet you still ignore or fail to understand this. This sort of stuff HAS to be already hard-wired into the airplane; otherwise, there is a SIGNIFICANT (read very carefully: SIGNIFICANT) expense in getting it installed.

If you don't know what a databus is and what it is for, think of a house. An airplane that has the databus installed is like a house with all of the electrical wiring in place. That means that you can plug in your stove, your microwave, your lamps, your TV, your computer all on one standard system that everyone is familiar with. This is the C-17. Your IL-76 is like a house without the electrical wiring; to get everything we want installed, we have to virtually tear the house apart to install the wiring, and get the housing permit to certify the installation.

Oh, the reason why we kept the flight engineer is very simple: more eyes and brains in the cockpit. With the FWSAR project, even though all of the contenders are two-person cockpit aircraft, we will still be adding a Flight Engineer and a Navigator to the mix. Dumping important crew positions such as the Flight Engineer for "budgetary" reasons is ridiculous. Safety should be paramount. The RAF are finding this to be true with the C-130J. Two pilots, two loadmasters. The loadmasters are now somewhat over tasked as one is normally in the cockpit helping with navigation, radios, etc. This is an accident waiting to happen in the military. A Flight Engineer will significantly lessen the workload the pilots are placed under.

Any moronic pilot can fly a plane from point A to point B on air routes unaided. It is when you get down in a tight mountain valley doing a SAR run or a low level insertion that a Navigator (and an Flight Engineer and loadmasters and everyone else that is associated onboard an aircraft) becomes very useful as you try and:

A: Try to find what or where you are looking for or going to.

B: Avoid hitting a mountain while doing so.

The more eyes in the cockpit, the better under these conditions. Electronics just can't take the place of the good old Mark 1 Eyeball.

2. Current USAF B-52H's were built in the 1960's. MIL-STD-1553 was adopted in its first generation at about the same time by the USAF. That standard was only revised in 1978, and only in some minor areas, making the upgrade easy.

Edit: I am also aware that the CF has already has a pool of pilots qualified on the C-17, either from being sent down when the purchase was announced, or from being on military exchange with the USAF. C-17 is now pretty much a 'done' deal. First aircraft for us is, as I said, from the updates Boeing is providing to us (the exact state, I can't tell you, but I can tell you that they are now on the assembly line), is already on the factory floor being assembled for us.

[w squared]

What he said

Thanks for adressing the questions, WJF.

Yultoto, if you want to request that WJF produce evidence of the LAPES delivery into Afghanistan, you had best produce evidence that nobody in the CF is qualified to do a LAPES drop. Based on the accuracy and objectivity of information that the two of you have provided in the course of this debate, he currently has FAR more credibility than you.

And no, he and I are not ganging up on you. We've argued opposing sides of a debate on military hardware before, and I for one have come away with a respect for the scope of his knowledge about military hardware. We're simply trying to show you the facts that make the C-17 an intelligent decision.

Despite the trend over the past two decades towards increased civilian contracting to meet the CF's needs in certain areas, we've learned that relying on contractors for some things is a bad choice. I won't supply specific cases, since WJFlyer has already provided ample evidence.

While civilian contractors can often deliver a lower cost solution, you have to take a look at the overall quality of what's being delivered. This needs to include "what if" scenarios. By definition, the military needs to be prepared to perform in desparate situations - this means that training and equipment standards need to be higher than the cost-effective standards that prevail in any for-profit operation.

A civilian contractor makes perfect sense for delivering building maintenance, janitorial, laundry, trash disposal, and food services on a base in Canada, or a secured facility overseas. These individuals are not going to be required to pick up a rifle and contribute to defending the base.

Only a fool would advocate using civilian contractors for many of the other services that the military requires. Vehicle recovery, traffic control, vehicle repair and maintenance, equipment transport into potential hot areas...these are areas where a civilian contractor would be cheaper, but a foolish choice. All of these areas entail being exposed to enemy action - and thus should remain the province of those that are trained and equipped to deal with the situations. The fact that we've used civilian contractors as a short-term stop-gap in the past does not mean that it's a viable long-term solution. In fact, it's pointed out the flaws inherent in the model.

The other thing that you should bear in mind is that the majority of the sources that you've quoted are tainted by the desire to accomplish political goals. While the raw data provided may be accurate, the manner in which is it presented and the cost/benefit analysis offered are badly biased. Those producing the pages that you've linked to obviously have a problem with spending anything more than the absolute bare minimum on the military...and thus don't have a problem with spending the lives of those in uniform to save taxpayer dollars.

I still remember the dark days in the 90's when the funding for the military was so low when troops flying back from the former Yugoslavia had to turn in their gore-tex and kevlar kit before they got on the plane. There was so little money being spent on the military that only the battle group currently deployed with UNPROFOR had equipment comparable to the standard issue for other NATO militaries. I'm not talking about night vision equipment or encrypted radios...I'm talking about basic pieces of kit that protect soldiers against enemy fire and the elements. To tell soldiers that we as a nation value their willingness to risk their lives so little is embarassing.

If we as a nation wish to task our military with peace support and disaster relief operations on an international basis, we need to understand that there is a dollar cost attached to that. Attmepting to do this on a shoestring budget will inevtiably cost lives. How many lives are you willing to spend in order to save 10 million taxpayer dollars. How many military widows and orphans are you willing to create in order to cut military spending? Would your answer change if you were the one who had to notify those people that they were now widows and orphans because you didn't think that it was worth spending money on the equipment that could have saved their loved ones? Saving a few dollars is not worth a single soldier's life.

If we as a nation wish to have this ability, we need to spend the money on both personel and equipment. We don't need to stand-up a slew of new units, but we do need to ensure that the units we have are at full strength, and that the equipment they have is modern and suitable for the roles that they will be assuming.

[EI-EIO]

as his similar posts on army.ca and pprune.org show, yultoto (or minorite invisible or A Taxpayer) has made up his mind.

Expressions like "Bush Brown Nosing Politicians (Harper)?" and "On February 6th 2006, Conservative, Pro-Bush, Pro-Iraq war, Pro-Israel Stephen Harper became Prime Minister of Canada." (as posted on pprune) tells me that A Taxpayer has far more worrying him than the C-17 purchase.

[mellow_pilot]

He's right! Let's get a super democtratic proposal from the NDP so we can all 'feel good' about procurement!

[yultoto]

1. The C-130's we upgraded already came with a MIL-STD 1553 databus. That made upgrading easy for us, as we didn't have to install the databus ourselves.

2. Current USAF B-52H's were built in the 1960's. MIL-STD-1553 was adopted in its first generation at about the same time by the USAF. That standard was only revised in 1978, and only in some minor areas, making the upgrade easy.

The Society of Automotive Engineers began drafting the MIL-STD-1553 in 1968. It was first published in August 1973. The first aircraft in the World ever equipped with such a Databus was the F-16. 1153A was released in 1975.

The B52s and our 1960s and early 70s vintage CC-130 are both pre 1553 databus aircraft. They were gutted and upgraded.

Civilians aircraft like the A-310, (CC-150) and our Bell 412s (CH-146) did not come with MIL-STD-1553 either but with Arinc 429 buses, like most civilian aircraft. I wonder how they got all the military avionics installed?

I guess it only becomes impossible in certain cases when there is a political motive behind it, but don't believe me since I am the one accused of having political agendas here.

[WJflyer]

I am just happy with the new speed in military procurement. With the contract to replace the MLVW's, the candidates are now being assessed by guys on the ground (very quick I may add!). I saw one of the candidates, a Mercedes-Benz Truck under trials in Gagetown a short while back. Big truck, it was. The same with the Oshkosh vehicle as well. Big powerful trucks, and both are worthy replacements for the MLVW's.

With the new political masters, finally, there is some speed in getting replacements for equipment that is long obsolete and tired, and restoring existing capabilities. No more political back scratching for local companies and lobbyists I say.

[WJflyer]

1. The C-130's we upgraded already came with a MIL-STD 1553 databus. That made upgrading easy for us, as we didn't have to install the databus ourselves.

2. Current USAF B-52H's were built in the 1960's. MIL-STD-1553 was adopted in its first generation at about the same time by the USAF. That standard was only revised in 1978, and only in some minor areas, making the upgrade easy.

The Society of Automotive Engineers began drafting the MIL-STD-1553 in 1968. It was first published in August 1973. The first aircraft in the World ever equipped with such a Databus was the F-16. 1153A was released in 1975.

The B52s and our 1960s and early 70s vintage CC-130 are both pre 1553 databus aircraft. They were gutted and upgraded.

Civilians aircraft like the A-310, (CC-150) and our Bell 412s (CH-146) did not come with MIL-STD-1553 either but with Arinc 429 buses, like most civilian aircraft. I wonder how they got all the military avionics installed?

I guess it only becomes impossible in certain cases when there is a political motive behind it, but don't believe me since I am the one accused of having political agendas here.

1. When the BUFF was being built for the USAF and the Herc's we bought was being finalized in design, there were provisions made made in both aircraft to have the MIL-STD-1553 databus installed. It was therefore easy to retrofit them into the aircraft as space was already there to do so.

2. The CC-150 Polaris has no military avionics; most of the stuff on it is civilian. Only the radios are military-spec, and that is why they never go in harm's way.

3. CH-146 when they were built for the CF, although they were COTS, were modified from factory to have the databus installed. CH-146's are slightly different from their civilian cousins in many areas, that I can't get into (security reasons), and as such, cannot be compared to.

[yultoto]

Yultoto, if you want to request that WJF produce evidence of the LAPES delivery into Afghanistan, you had best produce evidence that nobody in the CF is qualified to do a LAPES drop. Based on the accuracy and objectivity of information that the two of you have provided in the course of this debate, he currently has FAR more credibility than you.

Your turn. You want me to prove they did not do a LAPES drop? An you call yourself impartial? Find me one evidence I ever provided that was false. I could show you several of WJ's

Anyway..... go here to this unreliable source, I agree with you:

http://www.airforce.dnd.ca/equip/cc-130/hercules4_e.asp

Read this there:

A CC-130 Hercules conducting Low Altitude Parachute Extraction Sytem (LAPES) maneuvers. LAPES drops are no longer performed by the Herc, due to the extreme hazard. They were one of the most demanding tactical skills the Herc crew performed.
CF Photo

Here are some other unrealible and biased sources :

http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php?topic=18510.30
http://www.dcds.forces.gc.ca/jointDoc/d ... sary_e.pdf
http://www.jcaa.us/AA_Conference_2000/Th-13.pdf

No LAPES with the CC-130s and there will ne none with the tactical C-17 either.

[WJflyer]

Yultoto, if you want to request that WJF produce evidence of the LAPES delivery into Afghanistan, you had best produce evidence that nobody in the CF is qualified to do a LAPES drop. Based on the accuracy and objectivity of information that the two of you have provided in the course of this debate, he currently has FAR more credibility than you.

Your turn. You want me to prove they did not do a LAPES drop? An you call yourself impartial? Find me one evidence I ever provided that was false. I could show you several of WJ's

Anyway..... go here to this unreliable source, I agree with you:

http://www.airforce.dnd.ca/equip/cc-130/hercules4_e.asp

Read this there:

A CC-130 Hercules conducting Low Altitude Parachute Extraction Sytem (LAPES) maneuvers. LAPES drops are no longer performed by the Herc, due to the extreme hazard. They were one of the most demanding tactical skills the Herc crew performed.
CF Photo

Here are some other unrealible and biased sources :

http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php?topic=18510.30
http://www.dcds.forces.gc.ca/jointDoc/d ... sary_e.pdf
http://www.jcaa.us/AA_Conference_2000/Th-13.pdf

No LAPES with the CC-130s and there will ne none with the tactical C-17 either.

Some of the C-130 pilots that I talked to are still qualified, even though we do not practice LAPES anymore. C-17 is also LAPES qualified, and the pilot pool for that type has experience doing LAPES while on exchange with the USAF.

And I think your comments on 'unreliability' shows who you are; your a civilian troll that has zero understanding of what our men do, and what troubles they experience doing their job. Tell you what, go to a recruiting office and join the CF to learn what hazards our men face when they are placed in second-rate pieces of equipment. This is what I see and hear EVERY DAY.

[yultoto]

1. When the BUFF was being built for the USAF and the Herc's we bought was being finalized in design, there were provisions made made in both aircraft to have the MIL-STD-1553 databus installed. It was therefore easy to retrofit them into the aircraft as space was already there to do so.

Oh GOD! The MIL-STD-1553 was invented in 1973. You seem to say that some aircraft manufactured before that have provisions to upgrade to something that was not yet invented? Thank you. I will sleep wiser tonight.

[WJflyer]

1. When the BUFF was being built for the USAF and the Herc's we bought was being finalized in design, there were provisions made made in both aircraft to have the MIL-STD-1553 databus installed. It was therefore easy to retrofit them into the aircraft as space was already there to do so.

Oh GOD! The MIL-STD-1553 was invented in 1973. You seem to say that some aircraft manufactured before that have provisions to upgrade to something that was not yet invented? Thank you. I will sleep wiser tonight.

Any 1960's military aircraft and later that was under development or design are designed under the knowledge that there was a new aircraft communications system under development, and as such, space has to be allocated for upgrades. This is called "future growth". For example, it was easy for the CF to perform the CF-18 IMP because the designers knew that there was the potential for new hardware and avionics that will be developed and installed at a later date. As such, McDD designed extra space in the F/A-18 for "future growth". All Western military aircraft have provision for "future growth". C-17's, as I am aware, has tons of extra space for the installation of more avionics and systems, and the extra electrical power as needed for future needs.

[chubbee]

Some of the attitude presented by the "DND insiders" in this thread does no credit to the Forces. Please remember that probably less than 5% of Canadian males and maybe .5% of Canadian females have any time in service with the DND in the last twenty years.
Of those that have relatively recent Cdn. military service the majority would have no special qualifications re C-17 procurement. Those who served in military trades such as dental hygiene or submarine maintenance are not relevantly skilled.
Dismissing any "civilian" who does not bow and scrape to bluster as generically incompetent is just driving a wedge between the Forces, ex Forces ( a miniscule minority of the population) and the rest of the majority population whose support the Forces need.
Many of the arguments made on behalf of the DND status quo have merit, they can stand on that merit without cheap tactics. I am personally very fond of Boeing aircraft.

[WJflyer]

Some of the attitude presented by the "DND insiders" in this thread does no credit to the Forces. Please remember that probably less than 5% of Canadian males and maybe .5% of Canadian females have any time in service with the DND in the last twenty years.
Of those that have relatively recent Cdn. military service the majority would have no special qualifications re C-17 procurement. Those who served in military trades such as dental hygiene or submarine maintenance are not relevantly skilled.
Dismissing any "civilian" who does not bow and scrape to bluster as generically incompetent is just driving a wedge between the Forces, ex Forces ( a miniscule minority of the population) and the rest of the majority population whose support the Forces need.
Many of the arguments made on behalf of the DND status quo have merit, they can stand on that merit without cheap tactics. I am personally very fond of Boeing aircraft.

The thing is that some of things I am trying to explain can't really be explained that well to a complete outsider. Dumming the information down only causes confusion and misunderstandings. Some of the information I would otherwise post and tell you is OPSEC: I can't tell you due to issues of national security (I can loose my job and go to jail if I told you). To sum up, here is why the CF is buying the C-17:

1. There has been a demonstrated need in the past 20 years for on demand, priority access for strategic lift by the CF. C-17 is one of the two paths the CF is pursuing, as it provides immediate and priority capabilities in situations where time is of the essence. The other is the drive by the CF to purchase Roll On/ Roll Off ships and Amphibious Assault Ships to move large quantities of materials and being able to sustain the presence. The C-17's are there to secure and prepare for the arrival of ship-based reinforcements.

2. The CF has been studying the issue of strategic airlift for over a decade, and through countless studies, has identified the C-17 as the only aircraft to meet our needs that is in production today of Western construction and design.

3. The global security picture is changing; we can no longer rely on renting out aircraft as needed before. There is an increase in demand for chartered lift, which is raising prices and reducing availability. Canada is at the forefront in terms of assisting other nations in times of need, and we need the ability to move lots of men and their equipment quickly to a disaster site quickly to secure Canadian and global interests, and to protect Canadians that are in the area. Purchasing C-17 meets this demand as it provides immediate access to aircraft that can take our men and materials quickly overseas to assist in those conditions and do so reliably.

[yultoto]

as his similar posts on army.ca and pprune.org show, yultoto (or minorite invisible or A Taxpayer) has made up his mind.

Expressions like "Bush Brown Nosing Politicians (Harper)?" and "On February 6th 2006, Conservative, Pro-Bush, Pro-Iraq war, Pro-Israel Stephen Harper became Prime Minister of Canada." (as posted on pprune) tells me that A Taxpayer has far more worrying him than the C-17 purchase.

Finally someone who gets it! What worries me is that we are purchasing things with taxpayers money for reasons that are politically motivated, ie please people in Washington.

Every single country that expressed interest in the C-17 at NATO, plus the UK and Australia, the sole other 2 countries that ordered any, participated militarily in the IRAQ invasion. They are all US...... whatever you want to call them.
Canada is the oddball in the group and that is only because Harper was not yet in power. He is taking us down a very slippery slope.

Like many people who dont like my posts, I am for increased military spending and a stronger military. I am for the C130 replacement, be it the C130J or another, we need it. The other stuff too. I am for it because I am against us having to depend on the USA for every military deployment. I wish Canada had a military that allowed it to always have an independent foreign policy that did not have to automatically align with Washington's. They have not always been the good guys in the past, they will not always be the good guys in the future. There are times when we should side with them, others when we certainly should not.

I think the military should decide what they need and should have the budget to buy it, without political interference, without having to take "Industrial Benefit" into consideration. This however, should be done within the law and by accepting tenders from all. The equipment purchased should meet SOR and the SORs should not be custom made so that only one competitor can win it.

The Boeing C-17, I will never cease to believe it, was a political choice made for political reasons. Any Canadian General in his right mind would buy something else with four billions if he was given that amount today and told "here. buy what you need with this" The C-17 would be #50 on his list.

[x-wind]

Wjetflyer

I think your degree in international relations makes you biased in this argument.

Plus you sound pretty hard headed with your response to yultoto.

You haven’t considered any of his arguments even creditable it seems, and to me he’s making a lot of informed points.

The C-17 was the only plane that fit the bill? Pretending to be diplomatic would work a little bit better.

[WJflyer]

as his similar posts on army.ca and pprune.org show, yultoto (or minorite invisible or A Taxpayer) has made up his mind.

Expressions like "Bush Brown Nosing Politicians (Harper)?" and "On February 6th 2006, Conservative, Pro-Bush, Pro-Iraq war, Pro-Israel Stephen Harper became Prime Minister of Canada." (as posted on pprune) tells me that A Taxpayer has far more worrying him than the C-17 purchase.

Finally someone who gets it! What worries me is that we are purchasing things with taxpayers money for reasons that are politically motivated, ie please people in Washington.

Every single country that expressed interest in the C-17 at NATO, plus the UK and Australia, the sole other 2 countries that ordered any, participated militarily in the IRAQ invasion. They are all US...... whatever you want to call them.
Canada is the oddball in the group and that is only because Harper was not yet in power. He is taking us down a very slippery slope.

Like many people who dont like my posts, I am for increased military spending and a stronger military. I am for the C130 replacement, be it the C130J or another, we need it. The other stuff too. I am for it because I am against us having to depend on the USA for every military deployment. I wish Canada had a military that allowed it to always have an independent foreign policy that did not have to automatically align with Washington's. They have not always been the good guys in the past, they will not always be the good guys in the future. There are times when we should side with them, others when we certainly should not.

I think the military should decide what they need and should have the budget to buy it, without political interference, without having to take "Industrial Benefit" into consideration. This however, should be done within the law and by accepting tenders from all. The equipment purchased should meet SOR and the SORs should not be custom made so that only one competitor can win it.

The Boeing C-17, I will never cease to believe it, was a political choice made for political reasons. Any Canadian General in his right mind would buy something else with four billions if he was given that amount today and told "here. buy what you need with this" The C-17 would be #50 on his list.

Yet the CF has studied the C-17 for over a decade and came to the conclusion that when push comes to shove, C-17 is the best option there is for us.

You talked about the UK and Australia purchasing C-17 and saying it is because they are buying it because the purchase was politically motivated. WRONG.

The UK purchased the C-17 Globemaster III in 2000 (BEFORE BUSH GOT ELECTED, NOTE THIS!) with the Short-Term Strategic Airlift (STSA) competition. The UK canceled the competition in late 1999 and acquired the C-17 after realizing that C-17 was the only aircraft available on the market that met the UK's needs. The purchase of the C-17 was to fill in the gap created by the wait for the Airbus A400M. The UK has been delighted with the service and capabilities of the C-17 in RAF service, and have purchased (not leased) an additional example, with the possibility of more to follow, and have stated that at the end of the lease for the existing C-17's, they will elect to purchase.

Australia purchased the C-17 in 2005 due to their acknowledgment that chartered airlift was no longer acceptable for the jobs the Australian Defence Forces were undertaking around the world; the same situation that is facing Canada.

Sweden is also talking about buying the C-17 after they identified a need for a strategic airlift capability for use with the EU Nordic Battlegroup in 2006. Sweden is not a nation that you normally associate with the US on many issues.

Germany is also talking C-17 as well. The Germans have been watching the performance of the C-17 in USAF and RAF service, as the government realized a need for its own organic strategic transport capability to be able to respond to disasters in a timely manner than it was able to during the 2004 Tsunami crisis. During the tsunami relief effort, Germany tried to acquire transport through its usual method of leasing Antonov airlifters via private companies, but found to its dismay that there were no available aircraft for a timely response.
http://www.expatica.com/actual/article. ... y_id=15827

We have explained time and time again why purchasing or continued leasing of Antonov's and Ilyushins is unacceptable for the CF. Yet you refuse to acknowledge that the CF's need for on-demand, priority access to strategic lift is a major concern for the CF. Renting military equipment is not only costly in the long term, but it could also compromise Canada's security, as we could be last when there are Canadian citizens stranded in a disaster zone, and we can't get to them fast enough.

CF Lt.-Gen. Andrew Leslie, Commander of the CF Land Forces has stated before that the CF needs strategic lift if Canada wants to send troops overseas for peacekeeping or humanitarian reasons. Hiller wanted a Herc replacement. Leslie wanted strategic lift and so did the government. Both got what they wanted. Hiller is pleased in that he is getting a replacement for current airlift capabilities, and he is even more pleased he could get additional capabilities as well. Hiller only thought he could get one out of two options and pressed for the most important option, replacing the Herc. In the end he got both; a replacement for the Herc, plus strategic lift.

Canada has been severely criticized in the past by our allies in NATO for the neglect of our military and the lack of capability the CF had in the 1980's-1990's. When our forces were deployed in Germany during the Cold War, we got relegated to second-line duties even though we sent our best divisions over. Do you want us to return to this situation, that when we deploy overseas in support of NATO and UN missions, that we get relegated to second line duties because our men do not have the equipment to do their jobs properly? I sure hope not.