Very interesting document. I have a few comments to make on it.
First of all, like all literature ever produced by the DND, Pro Strategic Airlift Think Tanks, and the Press articles that get their sources from these same people, the author compares the C-17 to the Antonov 124 and to the yet to fly Airbus A-400. It just blows my mind that all these authors seem to suffer from a bizare form of selective and temporary amnesia when it comes to comparing the C-17 to the Ilyushin 76. The IL-76 is never mentionned in this report, only the Antonov. He does mention CF deployments that were done with IL-76s, like Haiti, but does not mention the Ilyushin. He uses AN-124 arguments only to explain and justify all his arguments.
How can DND always think of the IL-76 when its time for leasing aircraft, as the many pictures of IL-76s on the ground in Trenton and Edmonton can attest, but fail to ever think of it when comparing the C-17 to the aircraft we most commonly lease? The comparaisons are ALWAYS with and only with the Antonov 124.
He then adds "There are currently 22 AN-124 in commercial service (there are now 25, since three new ones were delivered since this report was written) based in either Russia or the Ukraine " and that they are 15 years old on average (Our CF-18s are how old now? Over 20 years)
He fails to mention that there are over 250 Ilyushin 76s in commercial service in the World and that is it the main Strategic aircraft of Russia's Air Force which also has several hundred of the type in service.
This document, written in 2004, states that the CF spent 77$ million in commercial airlift since 1997, and another 37$ million for using the US's strategic ressources. That comes out to 114 million dollars in seven years, so 16 million a year, or probably 18 million to quote Minister McCallum since I dont have the exact dates associated with these figures.
The author begins that paragraph by stating that the leasing AN-124s for 13,300 to 16,000$ an hour is expensive (Today with increased demand and the rise of fuel, it is around 23,000$ an hour). However, that is cheap, when you compare it with the 40,000$ an hour that it is going to cost DND to fly C-17s. Maybe cost is irrelevant, as posters seem to think, and that the C-17 is required regardless of cost, but claiming that renting AN-124s for 16,000$ an hour is certainly not an argument in favor of the C-17.
He states that CF requirements in Airlift would require at least 1000 hours of AN-124s per year. The author then adds that "the life cycle cost of this arrangement is forecasted to be comparable to the purchase of 6 C-17s or 12 A400M". He must have gone to the same grade school as WJflyer because I was unable to come up with such numbers.
I attempted to multiply 16,000$ by 1000 hours by 20 years and only came up with 320 million, well short of the 3.5 Billion the FSA project claimed the C-17s were to cost back then. And by the way, the 320 million included crew, maintenance and fuel, while the 3.5 Billion did not, like the 4 Billion do not today.
He then adds:
"The problem with obtaining C-17s for the CF is that they are highly suitable for only one aspect of the reach equation. Although they are eminently suitable to support deployment and redeployments, their capacity and operating costs makes them ill suited to carry out the sustainment acpect of most missions. The costs associated with obtaining a fleet of C-17s is unrealistic given the budgetary realities of the CF"
Then in a footnote he adds "The forecast project cost of purchasing four to six aircraft for 3.5 billion dollars is optomistic given the UK's experience. The UK entered into a seven year lease of four C-17s for 1.8$ Billion. Maintenance and operating costs were not included in the lease agreement and were covered under a number of smaller contracts"
