Problems for Canada's C-17 Purchase

[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?

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?

You might be right with the subs, these were in fact very defensively oriented machines, but I do see your point.

We aren't fighting wars though, we are defending the largest coastline in the world, protecting our soverignty and an important peice of the economic engine.

These planes are critical, we've proven a need for strategic lift, and now we'll have it.

[Argus]

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?

This looks like one of those news releases designed to prod congress. The C-17 is too important to the US military, and regardless of whether the production line is temporarily shut down (don't count on it) or not they will continue to be able to supply parts and service to C-17s long into the future.

[Argus]

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

Yeah, and you need them. Russian technology is crap, and Russian workmanship is a joke.

[kimmy]

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.

Wikipedia's entry about the C-17 includes this snippet:

The C-17 is designed to operate from runways as short as 3,000 ft (900 m) and as narrow as 90 ft (27 m). In addition, the C-17 can operate out of unpaved, unimproved runways (although this is rarely done due to the increased possibility of damage to the aircraft). The thrust reversers can be used to back the aircraft and reverse direction on narrow taxiways using a three-point (or in some cases, multi-point) turn maneuver.

Boeing's specifications for the 747-400 (on which the military cargo version was to be based) indicated that even if the darned thing is at sea level and empty, it requires a nearly 6000 foot runway. If the thing is fully loaded, it needs an 10500 foot runway at sea-level. To get a fully-loaded 747-400 from a 3300 foot altitude (ie: Kandahar, Afghanistan) you need a 12000 foot runway.

(747-400 specs. woo-hoo: http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/acaps/7474sec3.pdf )

For the kind of places Canada's armed forces do their thing, I think it would be quite obvious that the C-17's ability to take off in 1/4 the space would be a huge advantage.

What I have been reading seems to suggest that Canada's military has wanted the C-17 for a long time and prior to the present government simply was not given the budget for it. The insinuation that the competition was rigged to Boeing's advantage seems unfounded.

-k

[Army Guy]

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.

The 747 is a good aircraft, for what it was designed for hauling small cargo boxes etc and passengers, and in a military use it great for getting large amounts of troops and small cargo into a strategic airfield.. such as what our polaris pas/cargo ac do in Saudi , from there smaller a/c are used such as the herc to bring all this equipment forward into a tactical airfields such as kanadar. However even thou the C-17 is a strategic airlifter if need be it can also be flown into tactical airfields. This would be done, if equipment that was required could not be flown in by herc, such as hvy armour vehs. The difference between a tactical and strategic aircraft is normally just price and size...both share most if not all the designs.

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.

A lease is just that, we rent them, and if there was ever a crisies the US could in fact pull them back for there own use, on top of the lease we are responsable for all the maint, and upkeep of those a/c , yes it is alittle cheaper but at the end of the day we do not own them. sort of you dent it , you bought it...

Lets also remember that with a purchase you are actually buying into the tech, if further advances are made with this a/c we will be informed and have that opition to purchase those as well...It also allows us to develope our own tech to put on these a/c...where as a lease you don't have that opition...believe it or not Canada does very well in these fields.

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

No there is not other than perhaps buying off the shelf from the US. or if there was enough orders to warrent reopening the assembly line. also keep in mind it is just the assembly line that is closing not the lines which produce the parts.

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

Lets remember who was in power at the time, and how tight the purse strings were....Subs were not on DND's list of things to buy today, in fact they were'nt even on the list of things to buy tommorrow..But DND does not make those decissions, the government of the day does..The subs would have been a great deal if it had not taken 7 years to close it, in that time things went bad , to completely rusted out.

Our government process of purchasing things is very flawed, with heaps of red tape,forums, and debates, just going from idea to actual purchase can take as long as 10 years, in that time tech has changed, requirements have changed everything has changed and we are stuck using something that is already obsolite before it's delivered. These new contracts for the C-17 and C130 are supposed to be fast tracked it's been 2 years already, and contracts still have not been signed "close but still not signed"

Another flaw is how we purchase items, DND gives the government the specs, for instance our new fleet of trucks, the government "all civilians i might add takes those very broad specs and rounds up a few samples, DND then tests them picks out the top three , the government then decides which one it is going to purchases, in the case of the LSVW we purchased, DND rated it the worse truck of all the samples provided, in fact the government ordered it to be retested until it passed, it was only after DND took it to the desert in the states that it passed.

Because it could be manufactured in BC by a canadian firm western star. Most of our equipment is bought this way, not because it is the best but because it has other pay offs like made in Canada, or creates Canadian jobs, which is good, but we tend to forget someones life depends on these vehs and just because it was made in Canada does not mean it is the best.

[Wilber]

The B747 freighter is a great aircraft, I've flown them but they were never designed as a military transport. The US military had another aircraft, the C5 Galaxy built for that purpose. It has kneeling landing gear and can be loaded from the front and rear by merely driving on and off. The 747 cargo deck is over ten feet off the ground and requires specialized gear to load and unload its cargo that require hard surfaced areas to use and is not capable of handling the weight of heavy armored vehicles. The C5 can carry two Abrams battle tanks. This doesn't have much to do with the C17 but it gives you an idea of why the 747 is not used by the military as a heavy lift transport.

The C17 was originally designed and built by McDonnell Douglas before they were absorbed by Boeing and is the replacement for the C-141. It is by far and away the most capable and versatile military transport in the world. It can carry just about anything the military needs (including one Abrams battle tank) into most places a C-130 can go and carry them farther and faster than any aircraft of its type. The question is not whether it is the best aircraft but whether Canada really needs them. I'll leave that to the pros. We definitely do need newer C130's, also the best aircraft of its type. Thats why different versions of it have been in continuous production since the 1950's and it is used by the military of more countries than any other transport.

The fact is, if you are in the market for military transports and want the best, there are only two choices, Boeing and Lockheed.

[Spike22]

Great news the C-17 is an extremely capable aircraft with a superb reputation it looks like the government is going full steam ahead according to the MERX posting a few months back with an ACAN, advanced contract award notification. But somehow we will screw up the procurement of this aircraft like the Sea King replacement (trying to build a new fly by wire helicoper which is a new FAR certified type ugh gives a headache thinking about the difficult certification issues) is currently undergoing and now the tactical helicopters. I think I read the project is called MHLH - Medium to Heavy Lift Helicopters and the tactical airlift project- Hercules replacement, FWSAR is now delayed with the new government but could start up again before the end of the year. Another new project that the governement is looking at is utility aircraft for Goosebay(?) and Yellowknife possibly a Bombardier aircraft Dash 8 type Q3/400($ and jobs talk huh Bombardier) even though this came out of nowhere except fo the fact Yellowknife might have gotten on board with the FWSAR program which was looking at the C-27J [www.c-27j.ca] or the C-295. Hopefully the folks that need these aircraft will get them quick. The conservatives seem keen to get the aircraft as soon as possible. Now will have to see if the procurement process (bureaucratic red tape) and if the conservatives remain in power long enough to put airplanes in the air...