View Full Version : Canada is getting C-17`s
6000PIC
22nd Jun 2006, 13:12
The Canadian Broadcasting Service is reporting that the Harper government will next week place a $15 Billion order to modernize the Canadian military , including the purchase of 4 C- 17 Loadmasters. Long overdue considering deployments to Haiti , Afghanistan ...
MarkD
22nd Jun 2006, 17:16
Announcements to start next week (probably 1 x day to stretch the media out) and likely to include the previously mentioned C-17s plus Chinooks, C-130J, trucks for the army and three supply ships. The SAR requirement (probably C-27J or CASA295) is apparently pushed back for a while.
Reach
22nd Jun 2006, 17:19
The Canadian Broadcasting Service is reporting that the Harper government will next week place a $15 Billion order to modernize the Canadian military , including the purchase of 4 C- 17 Loadmasters. Long overdue considering deployments to Haiti , Afghanistan ...
Most C17 loadmasters I know can be bought a lot more cheaply than that. C17 Globemaster IIIs are more expensive ;)
NURSE
22nd Jun 2006, 17:55
Any word of the RAF Purchase of its C17 Fleet+ the extra one promised in the Defence review. BTW when does the lease run out and we loose this capability?
Reach
22nd Jun 2006, 18:01
Any word of the RAF Purchase of its C17 Fleet+ the extra one promised in the Defence review. BTW when does the lease run out and we loose this capability?
I believe the RAF has committed to buying the 4 jets once the lease expires so you won't lose that capability. Don't know about the 5th.
Boeing offered a never to be repeated bargain basement price of approx $200m per to expire about now. AWST reckons the UK grabbed one.
Reach
22nd Jun 2006, 23:21
Boeing offered a never to be repeated bargain basement price of approx $200m per to expire about now. AWST reckons the UK grabbed one.
Better get in quick before the production line shuts down.
saudipc-9
23rd Jun 2006, 00:44
Mmmm I think I see a posting in my future:rolleyes:
NURSE
23rd Jun 2006, 01:57
with the Cannuks and the Aussies ordering 8 I wonder if there are any more potential orders out there. UK could really do with another 5 along with those on lease and promised IMHO
Flight Detent
23rd Jun 2006, 02:37
Just a point caught again in the comments of "MarkD" -
I am of the firm opinion that the C-130E3 is a much better alternative than the 'J', in many ways, not the least of which is the Js total dependence on automatics and very regular maintenance, and no FE!
The 'J' is a peace-time operator!!
Cheers, FD :E
2port
23rd Jun 2006, 06:54
That didn't take long - can't wait for the usual p***ing contest to start, it's been a few days since the last one...
2P
propulike
23rd Jun 2006, 07:53
Move it to the J vs K thread guys if you want to start - please.
(Far more fun listening to peple with low capacity worried about the lack of FEs over there :E)
flipster
23rd Jun 2006, 08:59
You just couldn't resist it, could you?
Yawn!:bored: :bored:
OFBSLF
23rd Jun 2006, 14:02
Move it to the J vs K thread guys if you want to start - please.Sheesh, I barely got my popcorn and you're already trying to shut down the entertainment...
propulike
24th Jun 2006, 08:24
You just couldn't resist it, could you?No! I'm so weak....
Like This - Do That
26th Jun 2006, 03:33
Same with those Caribou's.... well. actually I 'll leave that one out.. since current CAF wants to replace them with Army choppers.
Frozo I'd like to see them replaced with Army Caribous (and more helos ....):}
AA717driver
26th Jun 2006, 04:18
Re: Horse and cart.
Anyone who thinks horses don't need regular maintenance apparently hasn't owned one! ;) TC
Minorite invisible
6th Nov 2006, 21:06
http://boeingc17.********.com/
antipodean alligator
7th Nov 2006, 10:22
Looking at the price tags in the C-17 ********, I reckon we have the answer to the RAAF's F-35 vs F-22 dilemma.
Clearly F-22s are the same price as C-17s. Given that all of these new toys are 100% reliable with no spares or blue-suited maintaners required, we'll just trade 2 C-17s for 2 x F-22s.
I'm sure that a pair of the Wonder Weapons could defend Oz with our backup team of JIBWACs an M?RTTs. Any slack left in the truckie area by the trade of the 2 C-17s can be easily picked up by our exceptional "Hercules in name only - nothing like the A to Hs (or K's just for you Brits) before us" J Model fleet!:ok:
thinly veiled puff job for Antonov methinks. Keeps coming up in Canada, except nobody remembers the 124s runway requirement.
Minorite invisible
10th Nov 2006, 00:31
thinly veiled puff job for Antonov methinks. Keeps coming up in Canada, except nobody remembers the 124s runway requirement.
Well let me remind everyone then.
Boeing makes a lot of fuss about being able to LAND its C-17 on 900 meters at a reduced weight. As you can read here, http://boeingc17.********.com/2006_11_01_boeingc17_archive.html
and according to their own company Websites, at their respective Maximum take-off weights, a Boeing C-17 (with a max payload of 77 tons) needs 2359 meters to take-off while the Antonov 124-100 needs 2800 meters with a 120 ton payload.
If you put just 77 tons on an AN-124 and enough fuel to go as far the Boeing can go with a the same payload, their runway performace gets even closer.
Here are the sources :
http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/c17/docs/C-17_overview.pdf
http://www.antonov.com/products/air/transport/AN-124/its.xml
Sorry.......
Smurfjet
10th Nov 2006, 02:52
Sorry for what? :)
Here is a fact you did not know. The AN124 needs 1 to 2 minutes on the runway before it can start it's take-off roll to 'warm up' the engines. We used to provide the tower with large arrival gaps when an AN124 was departing becasue of that.
I am sure any military tactical transport pilot here will tell you how uncomfortable that is.
AN124 is out of the question because it can't fill both shoes (tactical and strategic), IL76 is the only other option to 'match' the C17.
If you can do more research, look for reliability stats of the IL76 from their operators. It would be interesting to see if they can dispell the rumors of lack of support/maintenance or confirm them.