Problems for Canada's C-17 Purchase

[jdobbin]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14406292/

The C-17 could go out of production very soon. I wonder what Canada's purchase and servicing agreement is. Could the not yet made European plane have been a better choice?

[Yaro]

Yes it was, in fact the C-17 was one of the worst choices we could have made but what do you expect.

[jdobbin]

Yes it was, in fact the C-17 was one of the worst choices we could have made but what do you expect.

How so? I've heard so many things about the plane. I know the Liberals were opposed in favour of more C-130s. I can't recall if they had a renewed policy on heavy lift aircraft.

[Yaro]

Really they or the C-130's are about is good as your going to get out of Boeing, unfortunately for anyone that knows anything about lift capable aircraft all of the Boeing craft are way overpriced. They are "moderately" capable vehicles, no better then what you could have gotten out of Europe or Russia for a fraction of the price without feeding the US military complex.

If we didn't have a defence minister and CDS who were both in bed with Boeing there is no practical way that Boeing wins this contract. Its sad that the group of men that are now in charge of our military are either so incredibly corrupt or incompetent and in the case of these two men both.

[geoffrey]

Really they or the C-130's are about is good as your going to get out of Boeing, unfortunately for anyone that knows anything about lift capable aircraft all of the Boeing craft are way overpriced. They are "moderately" capable vehicles, no better then what you could have gotten out of Europe or Russia for a fraction of the price without feeding the US military complex.

If we didn't have a defence minister and CDS who were both in bed with Boeing there is no practical way that Boeing wins this contract. Its sad that the group of men that are now in charge of our military are either so incredibly corrupt or incompetent and in the case of these two men both.

What is a specific alternative that has comparable specs, for a similar price? Do you think it might have something to do with what our allies use? Both Britian and the US use the C-17's.

Makes sense to me.

[jdobbin]

Really they or the C-130's are about is good as your going to get out of Boeing, unfortunately for anyone that knows anything about lift capable aircraft all of the Boeing craft are way overpriced. They are "moderately" capable vehicles, no better then what you could have gotten out of Europe or Russia for a fraction of the price without feeding the US military complex.

If we didn't have a defence minister and CDS who were both in bed with Boeing there is no practical way that Boeing wins this contract. Its sad that the group of men that are now in charge of our military are either so incredibly corrupt or incompetent and in the case of these two men both.

I know some people suggested we just lease or buy the Russian heavy lift aircraft and rely on new C-130s.

And I remember Boeing was accused of all sorts of price inflation on military craft.

[Yaro]

What is a specific alternative that has comparable specs, for a similar price? Do you think it might have something to do with what our allies use? Both Britian and the US use the C-17's.

Makes sense to me.

That's just it, this contest was rigged from the beginning to use Boeing aircraft, I find it virtually impossible to believe that when coming up with the required specs and range that they didn't look at the C-17's and work backwards to exclude possible competitors.

As for the notion of what our allies use, its actually pretty funny as a concept because our "allies" screw us over in a huge number of ways when we buy these things. For example when you buy Russian airlifters they are well known for giving enough spare parts to rebuild the plane, where as Boeing gives virtually nothing. Tech support with Boeing again has a horrible reputation where as the Russians will provide virtually any information requested. And to top it all off the Russians give great latitude in what can be produced in on-site machine shops as far as replacement parts are concerned where as Boeing restricts them virtually universally.

Everyone, I would like you to meet the Canadian Military Industrial complex. Don't kid yourselves more of your tax dollars are going to be flushed down this toilet every year then all the welfare moms in the history of our country combined.

[kimmy]

Last year when this was being discussed, I thought the most interesting option was a company that was refitting surplus Russian strategic lift planes with American-made engines, avionics, and mechanicals. In theory, it would combine the best of both worlds-- a really low purchase price, and a reliable supply of replacement parts. In practice, of course, it would be a political hot potato because if one of these planes went down, then regardless of the circumstances you'd be accused of murdering Canadian servicemen by cheaping out on their equipment.

As for the C-17 transports... the article says that Boeing will meet orders of the planes and will be building them until 2009? It sounds like we'll get our planes, if they're ordered...

And there are already a huge number of these planes in service, so it's not like the parts are going to just vanish the moment the planes go out of production. Existing customers will expect support for their planes for many years into the future.

As for the idea that we should have just bought more C-130 Hercules aircraft... I am skeptical. I have read that Canada is using our fleet of Polaris transports so heavily that they're going to die prematurely due to the strain. If our existing Hercules transports are adequate, then why are the Polaris transports under such a heavy load? And if our Hercules transports aren't adequate, why buy more of them?

The Canadian airforce says: "The CC-150 Polaris is the air force's only true strategic airlifter."

( http://www.airforce.gc.ca/equip/cc-150/polaris1_e.asp )

-k

[jdobbin]

Everyone, I would like you to meet the Canadian Military Industrial complex. Don't kid yourselves more of your tax dollars are going to be flushed down this toilet every year then all the welfare moms in the history of our country combined.

We do seem to have gotten screwed on some of our purchases. The submarines comes to mind.

[Leafless]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14406292/

The C-17 could go out of production very soon. I wonder what Canada's purchase and servicing agreement is. Could the not yet made European plane have been a better choice?

What is the purpose of your post when you don't know the details of Canada's contract with Boeing?

Boeing is no 'hole in the wall' aircraft manufacturer and is the worlds largest manufacturer of commercial jetliners, military aircraft, business jets, amphibious aircraft as well as being the worlds largest aerospace company.

Boeing like auto manufactures will produce parts for years to come with associated service which in any event will probably be handled by Canadian firms anyways.

Sounds to me you have simply have it in for the U.S.

[jdobbin]

What is the purpose of your post when you don't know the details of Canada's contract with Boeing?

Boeing is no 'hole in the wall' aircraft manufacturer and is the worlds largest manufacturer of commercial jetliners, military aircraft, business jets, amphibious aircraft as well as being the worlds largest aerospace company.

Boeing like auto manufactures will produce parts for years to come with associated service which in any event will probably be handled by Canadian firms anyways.

Sounds to me you have simply have it in for the U.S.

Give me a break. I support the purchase of C-130s which...comes from the same country.

There have been questions, ones the federal government have also been asking this week, about how the contract will be fulfilled including parts and service. I haven't seen a full statement from the Defence minister yet although they say there should be no problem fulfilling the contract. That remains to be seen.

And Boeing has gone through some pretty serious scandals in recent years about price inflation on their aircraft. So no, they aren't a hole in the wall operation but they aren't a company to be given the benefit of the doubt either. We have been burned too many times in procurement.

[fellowtraveller]

They are "moderately" capable vehicles, no better then what you could have gotten out of Europe or Russia for a fraction of the price without feeding the US military complex.

How is the Airbus product 'a fraction of the price'? And - they are not yet built, unproven.

And ask Russias natural gas customers (like the Ukraine) how they feel about a sole source contract?

There are so many C-17s in service that parts will be available for decades.

I'm glad that Harper just got on with it, with a proven aircraft. Mr. Dithers was quite content to have our military fly Air Canuckistan(economy for the grunts, business class for the officers of course) to trouble spots.

We do seem to have gotten screwed on some of our purchases. The submarines comes to mind

Don't blame the Brits, blame the procurement process - all Canadians on that team.

[Cameron]

The C-17 is a very capable aircraft for the Canadian Armed Forces. Currently we do not have capable in-house strategic airlift capability. With the purchase of these aircraft it will give Canada the ability to move its equipment around the world without having to rent Russian aircraft to do the job.

The reason that the production line is being shut down is because there are no new orders for the aircraft. The USAF has not made any new requests for aircraft, they plan to keep their current order at 180. And if you think that buying crap-boxes and upgrading them works, just take a look at the illustrious subs we bought.

The European aircraft that was eluded to in a previous post is the A400M from Airbus. This aircraft has not yet been produced, and thus lacks real world testing. Plus, Airbus isn't doing too well with new aircraft designs, on-time delivery and quality (do a search on the A380, you will find that they are behind on delivery, and they have has some quality issues).

Below are some specs on the C-17, C-130, and A400M

General characteristics C-17

Crew: 3 -- 2 pilots, 1 loadmaster

Capacity: 170,900 lb (77,500 kg) of cargo distributed at max over 18 463L master pallets or a mix of palletized cargo or rolling stock (vehicles), or 102 troops, or 36 litter and 54 ambulatory patients and a medical crew of 5 ( two flight nurses and 3 medical technicians) The two center rows of seats can be removed for cargo.

Length: 174 ft (53 m)

Wingspan: 169.8 ft (51.75 m)

Height: 55.1 ft (16.8 m)

Wing area: 3,800 ft² (353 m²)

Empty weight: lb (kg)

Loaded weight: lb (kg)

Max takeoff weight: 585,000 lb (265,500 kg)

Powerplant: 4× Pratt & Whitney F117-PW-100 turbofans, 40,440 lbf (180 kN) each

Performance

Maximum speed: 450 knots (830 km/h)

Cruise speed: 390 knots (722 km/h)

Range: 2,400 nm; 2,800 nm on C-17 ER (4,400 km; 5,200 km on C-17 ER)

Service ceiling: 45,000 ft (13,700 m)

Rate of climb: ft/min (m/s)

Wing loading: lb/ft² (kg/m²)

C-17

General characteristics C-130

Crew: 4-6, at least 2 pilots, 1 navigator, and 1 loadmaster; additional loadmaster and flight engineer are usually part of the crew.

Capacity: 92 passengers, 64 airborne troops, or 74 litter patients with 2 medical personnel

Payload: 45,000 lb (20,000 kg) , including 2-3 Humvees or an M113 Armoured personnel carrier

Length: 97 ft 9 in (29.8 m)

Wingspan: 132 ft 7 in (40.4 m)

Height: 38 ft 3 in (11.6 m)

Wing area: 1,745 ft² (162.1 m²)

Empty weight: 83,000 lb (37,650 kg)

Useful load: 72,000 lb (32,650 kg)

Max takeoff weight: 155,000 lb (70,300 kg)

Powerplant: 4× Allison T56-A-15 turboprops, 4,300 shp (3,210 kW) each

Performance

Maximum speed: 329 knots (379 mph, 610 km/h)

Cruise speed: 292 knots (336 mph, 540 km/h)

Range: 2,050 nm (2,360 mi, 3,800 km)

Service ceiling: 33,000 ft (10,000 m)

C-130

General characteristics A400M

Crew: 3-4 (2 pilots, 3rd optional, 1 loadmaster)

Capacity: 37,000 kg (82,000 lb), 116 fully equipped troops / paratroops,up to 66 stretchers accompanied by 25 medical personnel

Length: 43.8 m (143 ft 8 in)

Wingspan: 42.4 m (139 ft 1 in)

Height: 14.6 m (47 ft 11 in)

Wing area: ()

Empty weight: 70 tonnes (154,000 lb)

Max takeoff weight: 130 tonnes (287,000 lb)

Total Internal Fuel: 46.7 tonnes (103,000 lb)

Max. Landing Weight: 114 tonnes (251,000 lb)

Max. Payload: 37 tonnes (82,000 lb))

Powerplant: 4× EPI (EuroProp International) TP400-D6 [5] turboprop, 8,250 kW (11,000 hp) each

Performance

Maximum speed: 780 km/h (421 kt)

Cruise speed: Mach 0.68 - 0.72 ()

Max. Operating Speed: 300 kt CAS (560 km/h, 350 mph)

Initial Cruise Altitude: at MTOW: 9,000 m (29,000 ft))

Range: at Max. payload: 3,300 km (long range cruise speed; reserves as per MIL-C-5011A (2 000 miles)

Range at 30-tonne payload: 4,800 km (3,000 miles)

Range at 20-tonne payload: 6,950 km (4,320 miles)

Ferry Range: 9,300 km (5,000 miles)

Tactical Takeoff Distance: 940 m (3 080 ft) (aircraft weight 100 tonnes, soft field, ISA, sea level)

Tactical Landing Distance: 625 m (2 050 ft) (see above)

Turning Radius (Ground): 28.6 m)

Service ceiling: 11,300 m (37,000 ft

Max. Operating Alt - Special ops: 12,000 m (40,000 ft)) For an explanation of the units and abbreviations in this list, please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Units key.

A400M

[jdobbin]

I'm glad that Harper just got on with it, with a proven aircraft. Mr. Dithers was quite content to have our military fly Air Canuckistan(economy for the grunts, business class for the officers of course) to trouble spots.

The British leased their 4 C-17s with a purchase option at the end. Why are we puchasing them?

If they need to purchase heavy lift, why not use 747s like the Australians use for half the cost?

[Army Guy]

Yaro:

Really they or the C-130's are about is good as your going to get out of Boeing, unfortunately for anyone that knows anything about lift capable aircraft all of the Boeing craft are way overpriced. They are "moderately" capable vehicles, no better then what you could have gotten out of Europe or Russia for a fraction of the price without feeding the US military complex

First of all, Boeing does not make the C130 Lockhead-Martin does, two entirely different manufactures, two separate purchase contracts. what is being talked about is the C-17 heavy lift transport...

Yes, Boeing A/C are expensive, when you compare them against other european /russian A/c of the same type. "But wait", the is none that you can directly compare them with, the A400m is much smaller, and the An124-100 is much larger ( about the same size as the C-5 galaxy)

But then again you get what you pay for, for russian a/c you get an airframe that just passes north american standards, with tech that is not the same standard as the wests, hence the agreement to build these same A/C with western tech, better engs etc..but this project never got off the ground....why price..and when all said and done it was still a sub standard a/c

Boeing A/C have been setting world records for servicabilty, times available, it is also noted they also set records for safety...all these were set in combat conditions in Iraq, and Afgan...

It's these above items that make the Boeings look so good. There are other reasons as well Russian a/c have been sold to or copied by most of the 3 world, including some of the wests "unfriendly countries" such as china, north Korea,the list goes on and on. and you don't want to be flying the same piece of garbage as the bad guys. plus you want a reliable source of parts not one where you might be in conflict with someday.

If we didn't have a defence minister and CDS who were both in bed with Boeing there is no practical way that Boeing wins this contract. Its sad that the group of men that are now in charge of our military are either so incredibly corrupt or incompetent and in the case of these two men both.

Do you have any proof of this, or are you just flapping your gums, Since when does purchasing the best equipment on the market for the men and women of this country make you corrupt. or is it that no liberals are getting thier kick back...and that would be a major crime...

Yes Canada already has purchased into the NATO airlift plan which allows us 125 hours of use on Russian built cargo planes..piont to note that would barely cover another Dart deplyment. Canada has historically had a much greater need for large transport A/C, IE, ICE storm, Winnipeg floods, just moving our own military around the country to train, or to secure our north. The C-17 is the largest transport plane available that does not require a special airport or special runway length.

There are thousands of ways to solve this, but while our government ( past and prssent) and people argue over a few dollars our current military does without at the cost of depts dollars, and lives... but then again since when have lives been a factor...

[jdobbin]

.Yes Canada already has purchased into the NATO airlift plan which allows us 125 hours of use on Russian built cargo planes..piont to note that would barely cover another Dart deplyment. Canada has historically had a much greater need for large transport A/C, IE, ICE storm, Winnipeg floods, just moving our own military around the country to train, or to secure our north. The C-17 is the largest transport plane available that does not require a special airport or special runway length.

Is that true of the 747 as well which the Australians also use?

The U.S. cancelled their large purchase of the C-33 (747) because they said it would be difficult to off-load in a confined space. This would only be true though if you had three or four of these planes working on the same field.

But given the costs of a C-17 versus a C-33, maybe we went with the wrong heavy lift craft.

[jdobbin]

The C-17 is a very capable aircraft for the Canadian Armed Forces. Currently we do not have capable in-house strategic airlift capability. With the purchase of these aircraft it will give Canada the ability to move its equipment around the world without having to rent Russian aircraft to do the job.

The 747, however, is cheaper and gives better lift capacity. Why wasn't that chosen?

[geoffrey]

The C-17 is a very capable aircraft for the Canadian Armed Forces. Currently we do not have capable in-house strategic airlift capability. With the purchase of these aircraft it will give Canada the ability to move its equipment around the world without having to rent Russian aircraft to do the job.

The 747, however, is cheaper and gives better lift capacity. Why wasn't that chosen?

Requires extremely long runways to land. It's completely useless for combat operations.

[Army Guy]

jdobbin:

Is that true of the 747 as well which the Australians also use?

The U.S. cancelled their large purchase of the C-33 (747) because they said it would be difficult to off-load in a confined space. This would only be true though if you had three or four of these planes working on the same field.

But given the costs of a C-17 versus a C-33, maybe we went with the wrong heavy lift craft

747 is a civilian airliner, which requires a very large prepared runway, military operations require an aircraft that has a shorter landing and take off capabilities, and has the landing gear to handle unprepare airfields, it's wieght alone prevents it from landing on anything but prepared tacmac surface. where a C-17 could land on a semi prepared dirt runway.

the 747 does not have a rear ramp to allow large vehs to roll on roll off, it's side cargo doors are not large enough to handle say a LAV armoured veh. it's cargo floors are not reinforced to handle the wieghts of armoured vehs. because of this lack of ramp, it requires more specialized equipment to load and off load.

That and the fact the 747 is a much larger a/c than the c-17 so space is a factor when your handling alot of aircraft in a short period of time. Also the 747 takes longer to off load, On the C-17 the cargo floor actually allows the cargo to slide out the back and dropped on the ground allowing the entire a/c to be offloaded with no equipment at all in mere minutes...The aircraft actually does not stop, it taxis up with the area they want the cargo off loaded the ramp is lower and Aircraft pallets pushed out the back onto the ground. or the veh is actually driven off . All while the a/c is still in motion once off loaded it puts the ramp up and proceeds to back on to the runway and takes off again..

As for the 747 how long does it take you to get your luggage from an aircraft, and how much equipment does it take...remember these aircraft operate in war zones, and make for big targets, not something you want when your the pilot. or a baggage handler.

[jdobbin]

Requires extremely long runways to land. It's completely useless for combat operations.

I've never seen anything written that it is useless for combat operations. It's true about the runways but once again I've never heard there's an issue with the Canadain Forces and runways. The Australians have made good use of their 747.

[jdobbin]

That and the fact the 747 is a much larger a/c than the c-17 so space is a factor when your handling alot of aircraft in a short period of time. Also the 747 takes longer to off load, On the C-17 the cargo floor actually allows the cargo to slide out the back and dropped on the ground allowing the entire a/c to be offloaded with no equipment at all in mere minutes...The aircraft actually does not stop, it taxis up with the area they want the cargo off loaded the ramp is lower and Aircraft pallets pushed out the back onto the ground. or the veh is actually driven off . All while the a/c is still in motion once off loaded it puts the ramp up and proceeds to back on to the runway and takes off again..

As for the 747 how long does it take you to get your luggage from an aircraft, and how much equipment does it take...remember these aircraft operate in war zones, and make for big targets, not something you want when your the pilot. or a baggage handler.

Any particular reason that the C-17 is a purchase rather than a lease? I can remember this has been a question asked by the British as well.

[geoffrey]

Requires extremely long runways to land. It's completely useless for combat operations.

I've never seen anything written that it is useless for combat operations. It's true about the runways but once again I've never heard there's an issue with the Canadain Forces and runways. The Australians have made good use of their 747.

I don't know if they can land on dirt strips either, whereas the C-17 can. It's a much more adaptable aircraft. Why are we trying to find the cheapest solution? We should be looking for the best plane for the job, not the cheapest thing to just 'get by'.

Any particular reason that the C-17 is a purchase rather than a lease? I can remember this has been a question asked by the British as well.

Fair enough, it's generally cheaper to lease a car right? So why do people buy them? Having an asset can be useful in the long term, when that lease expires, we are left with nothing. If one of the planes is destroyed, we have to pay replacement cost right away, meaning massive insurance where as a capital asset can be protected through it's own equity and government self-insurance much more easily than a leased plane can.

Asking why we didn't lease the C-17's is just a return to the debate about leasing/buying a car. Both have pro's and con's and the smart experts behind the acquistion determined the risk profile and terms of both agreements more favourable to purchase the asset.

[jdobbin]

I don't know if they can land on dirt strips either, whereas the C-17 can. It's a much more adaptable aircraft. Why are we trying to find the cheapest solution? We should be looking for the best plane for the job, not the cheapest thing to just 'get by'.

Fair enough, it's generally cheaper to lease a car right? So why do people buy them? Having an asset can be useful in the long term, when that lease expires, we are left with nothing. If one of the planes is destroyed, we have to pay replacement cost right away, meaning massive insurance where as a capital asset can be protected through it's own equity and government self-insurance much more easily than a leased plane can.

Asking why we didn't lease the C-17's is just a return to the debate about leasing/buying a car. Both have pro's and con's and the smart experts behind the acquistion determined the risk profile and terms of both agreements more favourable to purchase the asset.

Well, now there isn't a replacement aircraft if one is damaged.

The British did well by their leases.

I just don't have a lot of faith in the Canadian armed forcces when it comes to procurement. We have been burned so badly in the past on things.

[geoffrey]

Once bitten, twice shy. Maybe we've learnt our lesson.

Everytime we've got burned before is when we bought crap value priced equipment. Maybe buying the best we can get is the first step to better procurement in the forces?

[jdobbin]

Once bitten, twice shy. Maybe we've learnt our lesson.

Everytime we've got burned before is when we bought crap value priced equipment. Maybe buying the best we can get is the first step to better procurement in the forces?

It's more than that though. I questioned whether the forces needed new submarines in the first place siince they are more an offensive weapon that a defensive one. How many wars have been won by submarines?