NATO annouces its intent to buy Boeing C-17s

[Minorite invisible]

A reader gave me a link to NATO's Website, one that links to a September 12 2006 Press Conference given by NATO about their intention to purchase Boeing C-17s.
It is here: http://www.nato.int/docu/speech/2006/s060912a.htm
I was shocked to read it. It looks just like what is going on here in Canada in several aspects.

An unidentified journalist from the News Agency of Ukraine asks :

"need some additional (inaudible)... so let me ask my question. My question is, why Boeing? So was there any open tender announced and why Boeing was chosen, not any other(?) producer. And another part of the question (inaudible)..., after the project will be finalized does mean that NATO cooperation with these other partners, (inaudible)... for example, will be reduced?"

Marshall S. Billingslea, Assistant Secretary General for Defence Investment, replied:

"Good question and let me clarify. This was not one of these things where NATO suddenly went sole-source to one particular company. This decision today, the announcement today and the release of the LOI today in fact is the result of more than a year of analysis conducted into the economics and the capabilities associated with long range air-to-air refuelable outsize cargo lift.

In other words, when you are looking at that class of aircraft we came to the conclusion that there are three different airframes in existence today which are in that class. One of them airframes if the Antonov 124, which a number of nations operate, and which are also available for leasing and contracting on the commercial market.

The C-17 aircraft is another one that's in that class, which is not available today, to my knowledge, for commercial lease. Only for acquisition. And then the C-5 aircraft is the grandfather of outsize cargo strategic lift and that is certainly another aircraft that we know is in the class.

But there are no other aircraft in existence today with those kinds of specifications.

Now as you may know, NATO has been focusing on the shortfall associated with strategic lift for some time, and NATO, in fact, moved forward to cement a deal with one of those aircraft, the Antonov 124 already. So we have over the past several years, resulting in an actual lease arrangement with the SALIS initiative a standing flying hour contract with Antonovs for 2000 flying hours and several nations in that.

So you have already NATO and several of those nations working with the Antonov. The C-5 was a plane that we looked at, but decided, for a number of reasons, to turn our attention instead to the C-17, because that was the only other available lifter in this class, and you see now today NATO moving forward to start the negotiations for an arrangement on the C-17.

So the way you need to look at this is that NATO is, in fact, already trying to diversify the different kinds of air lifters that we have. We've got the Antonovs. Now we would like to get an additional kind of airframe. And this gets back to Nick's question, that is why you should precisely expect that we're going to be open to further airframes when additional kinds of lifters are fielded by different companies.

This initiative today, to create the NATO Strategic Airlift Capability in no way says anything about the SALIS arrangement. It certainly does not prejudge any aspect of that arrangement. We need those flying hours on the Antonovs and we continue to expect that the nations are going to use those flying hours and many NATO allies are big, big consumers of Antonov flying hours for military missions.

So there is, even with this acquisition, there is more demand than there is supply on the market."


I'd like to make a few comments on this reply.

First of all, Mr Billingslea says that they looked only at air-to-air refuelable aircraft. This would seem to eliminate the AN-124 wouldn't it? However, what use is there in having an aircraft with an Air-to-Air refuelable capability if there is no aircraft capable of refuelling it in the air?. This is the case of the UK, which leased 4 C-17 which are technically refuelable in the air. However, not only does the Lease contract between Boeing and the UK forbid such refuelling but there presently is no aircraft in the UK’s inventory that is capable of refuelling the C-17 in the air.

In the case of NATO, it will take US aircraft to refuel the C-17s.

Then Mr Billingslea adds that there are no other aircraft in that category. NATO, like Canada, seems to have amnesia when it comes to the existence of the Ilyushin 76MF-90. Unless their definition of “outsize” excludes an aircraft with 400 cubic meters of freight hold volume, and a 60 ton payload?

About the C-17, Mr Billingslea says:

“it is a fairly incredible machine, which can fly long distances, including, of course, an air-to-air refuelling capability. It can land without much of a runway. It can land on short runways, on dirt runways. And it can transport huge quantities of troops, or hardware, helicopters or tanks, special operations forces and what have you”

This is also a fair description of the Ilyushin 76. Although the standard IL-76MF does not have an air-to-air refuelling capacity by choice, the Beriev A-50 Mainstay, which is based on an IL-76 airframe, does. Any customer who would want an IL-76MF with a refuelling probe, could get one. I must add that there is also an Air-to-Air refueller version of the IL-76, the IL-78 Midas that NATO is well aware of. By having both, NATO could not only have the strategic aircraft but also its refueller, something it presently does not have.

This process looks identical to the one going on in Canada.

1) A Strategic Airlifter is being purchased without any form of open bidding

2) The Boeing C-17 is chosen

3) The existence of the Tashkent built Strategic Airlifter, the IL-76, of which over 960 have been built, and which is still in production is “forgotten” by NATO as a possible contender against the Boeing C-17

Are we certain the Cold War is really over?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

A few notes on Mr Billingslea, taken right off the NATO Website.

Prior to assuming the position of ASG(DI) in January, 2004, Marshall Billingslea served as the Acting Assistant U.S. Secretary of Defense for Special Operations / Low-Intensity Conflict. As such, he was the principal civilian advisor to the U.S. Secretary of Defense on Special Operations Forces and counter-terrorism efforts against al’Qaida and other terrorist groups. Mr. Billingslea had overall responsiblity for the supervision of all special operations activities of the Department of Defense, and served as the Co-Chairman of the Board of Directors of U.S. Special Operations Command. In November, 2003, Mr. Billingslea received from Secretary Rumsfeld the Medal for Distinguished Public Service for his work in counter-terrorism.

Prior to that, Mr. Billingslea was the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Negotiations Policy – the U.S. Secretary of Defense’s chief negotiator for all major international agreements. He was the principal DoD representative on numerous U.S. arms control delegations, and the U.S. Head of Delegation for Transparency and Verification negotiations with the Russian Federation in connection with the Moscow Treaty on Strategic Nuclear Reductions.

Before joining Secretary Rumsfeld’s Pentagon staff, Mr. Billingslea served for over six years as the Senior Professional Staff Member for National Security Affairs on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He was the senior advisor to the Chairman and members of the Committee on all proliferation, arms control, defense, intelligence, and counter-terrorism issues within the Committee’s purview. Further, Mr. Billingslea conducted day-to-day oversight of the U.S. arms sales process, and was responsible for reviewing and approving all exports licensed under the U.S. Munitions List and the Arms Export Control Act.

Not exactly an impartial person is it?

[SamCaine]

Given that the majority of NATO members don't participate in NATO operations, what will the C-17s be used for? Demonstrating how good NATO countries are at demonstrating how good NATO countries are? Most of the time they use their troops and equipment for exercises.

[BEagle]

Presumably these will be operated in a similar manner to the NATO-OTAN E-3 AWACS?

A pity that the Loadmaster won't be available for a few years yet. So the C-17 it is then.

[Violet Club]

I share MI's concerns about the great C-17 stitch-up that is going on by Boeing in a desperate attempt to keep the production line going.

It is incredible that the USAF is so determined to shut down and throw away the C-17 line – an insanely valuable national asset despite all that is wrong with that aircraft – while still finding money to spend on cra@p like ABL, NMD, JSF and so many other three-letter words...

It's not surprising therefore that Boeing is doing everything it can to keep the line alive, but its tactics – such as declaring two aircraft for Sweden – have not always shown a good grasp of reality outside the US market where customers don't have billions to take out and burn in the streets like the US DoD does.

It is a shame that the C-17 procurement in Canada become so blatantly politicised but that seems to be pretty much the way every procurement is conducted there these days...good luck with those S-92s.

At the same time one can't wave too much of a flag for the Il-76 because that aircraft is *not* in production - as evidenced by the slow collapse of the recent Chinese order for aircraft that can't be built because the factories have rusted over.

Beyond that, does anyone believe that NATO will ever get its act together and find the money to make this C-17 project a reality? Look at what's happening with AGS....nothing is happening, that's what - 10 years of nothing. All because someone somewhere has to put their hand in their pocket and fork out a huge amount of cash that they don't actually have.

Isn't that the template for what will happen to the C-17s?

VC

[Minorite invisible]

Donald Rumsfeld, not content with milking his own taxpayers of all they were worth on unnecessary military spending, not content with raising the military budget in his own country and filling the pockets of his friends in the Military-Industrial establishment in the USA thanks to a bogus war that he started on bogus excuses, sends his good friend and associate Mr Marshall S. Billingslea to Europe as Assistant Secretary General for Defence Investment in NATO.
Mr Billingslea can keep a stone face, while telling Europeans at a NATO press conference that the Boeing C-17, whose plant is about to be closed for lack of orders, is a good deal for NATO.

And the only one present who asked an appropriate question was a Ukrainian journalist? (He was told, "dont worry, we'll give you a small fish to eat, but we're getting the C-17")

The C-17 plant was due to close this past summer for lack of orders so American politicians, ambassadors, lobbyists and their kind went into high gear to try to save the plant and its California high tech jobs. They were able to squeeze 4 orders out of Australia and its accommodating Government, 4 orders out of Stephen Harpers pro-American Conservative Government in Canada and one extra one out Tony Blair’s Government, in addition to 3 that Rumsfeld got out of the Pentagon, thanks to his Iraq war and its never ending need for more Strategic transport.

Now a Rumsfeld appointee is attempting to convince NATO that not only it needs C-17s but that there is no alternative.

I think that Ukraine has about 50 Strategic Aircraft on its Military inventory that it would be too happy to press into service for NATO service for one alternative. There are probably others, but please, the European journalists wake-up!

[BEagle]

It seems to have the smell of the KC-767A scandal about it.....

Jobs for the Boeing boys - and their sponsoring senators.

[brickhistory]

Some random thoughts/questions on either the NATO intent or Canada's C-17 purchase:

What will Canada get in return for purchasing the C-17? What was the pressure/political intrigue that brought about the intent to buy Boeing? Did the C-17 meet Canada's needs? Did anyone else's that is currently in production?

Why did the RAF lease the four C-17s? Why did the lease include the no AAR clause?

Did/does the NATO minister mentioned have the authority to purchase a multi-billion a/c program on his own authority or do the member nations get a say?

Who provides the tanker support now to the NATO-OTAN E-3 force?

What other in-production strat airlift aircraft are available NOW for purchase?

If the Minister had been any other nationality than American and the a/c manufacturer had been other than US, would you still have the same sense of outrage?

Edit: With the exception of, perhaps, the last question, I genuinely am looking for the answers and not to insult anyone. The last one is meant to mildly barbed, not offensive.......

[Minorite invisible]

Good questions.

1) Canada asked for Industrial returns equal to the amount of the contract. But it is well known that industrial returns are made possible by over billing the initial product, and ultimately, it is the buying country's taxpayers that foot the bill. These are requirements that politicians impose on sellers to make taxpayers accept an unpopular purchase (yes it costs a fortune, we don’t really need it but it will provide you with good jobs). Well I can think of many better job creating methods of spending close to 4 billion dollars of public money.
2) Normally, when the military need some piece of hardware, there is a paper trail that goes back years where the brass have to justify their needs, and write up the specifications that the needed piece of hardware must have. I found no trace of Canada’s military even hinting at wanting a new strategic aircraft in 2005, let alone purchase one. Then suddenly the MDN publishes in June 2006 version 1.0 of a Statement of Requirements for a Strategic Aircraft that looks exactly like a C-17 and for which we publish an ACAN (Advance Contract Award Notice) in July 2006, less than a month later. All this a few months after the US ambassador had publicly suggested we should get some, 3 months after one was demonstrated in Ottawa to the MDN and just when the Boeing C-17 plant was due to close (Australia ordered theirs in March 2006) and a few months after a new Government very eager to please Washington takes power in Canada.
3) Ilyushin, based in Tashkent, Uzbekistan, produces the IL-76 which, like the C-17 is a hybrid strategic/tactical airlifter. Antonov, in Kiev, Ukraine, produces the AN-70, which is nearing certification.
4) I’ll let someone else answer for the RAF and its C-17s. I am certain someone will
5) The NATO Minister most likely does not have single authority. But we only see the surface of what goes on and member nations do get a say. In this case, those that favour the purchase are mostly, as far as I can gather, Eastern Europe new members who are more prone to US pressure than the others.
6) The US provides tanker support to NATO E3s
7) The Ilyushin IL-76 is in production NOW. The AN-70 is flying and will be in production soon
8) As for the Minister, his nationality and his choice of aircraft: I must state that the timing of the NATO LOI with the fact that Boeing needed those orders now in order to decide between closing in 2006 and staying open for another 24 months, combined with the Ministers’ Resume, more than his nationality, increased my sense of outrage.

[GonzoXL5]

I don't know how the lease originated but I do know the RAF announced in August that they are acquiring the aircraft at the end of the lease period in 2008.

[NoseGunner]

Am I missing something? Now I'm not a C17 expert but from afar it looks like this:

1. RAF desperately needs more airlift.
2. MOD makes surprisingly quick decision to lease C17s, oreders them and gets them.
3. C17s arrive and are so useful we massively overfly the projected hours and in fact decide we need another one.

Isnt this a good thing? Or were we horribly manipulated by those evil Yanks?

Oh and I guess:

4. NATO sees the above, is also massively short of airlift and decide to do something similar (except buy straight away).

I'm struggling to see the negatives here. :confused: :confused:

[brickhistory]

4. NATO sees the above, is also massively short of airlift and decide to do something similar (except buy straight away).
I'm struggling to see the negatives here. :confused: :confused:

Hence my questions:

Who/how did Canada get 'forced' to buy anything? But if they wanted a quicker fill of its airlift need, why would the C-17 not be the choice now? I do not know the domestic politics in Canada well to answer this. But to say its been a 'few months' from a government desparately eager to please Washington seemed a bit of a stretch.......

If the US already provides the tanker support for the NATO E-3 component, why was it 'shady' for that consideration for a NATO C-17 buy? If it ever happens? If the C-17 is purchased by NATO, what other NATO country could support the A/R needs? Don't think it has been tested/ configured for probe/drogue, but will defer to anyone more knowledgable.

As posted by another, the IL-76 is not being churned out. What is the fact of the matter? If not, then what other strat airlifter is being produced right now? Not in a few years, but now?

Would Boeing bend a few arms to keep the line going? I'd think so, but to infer skullduggery (have NEVER worked that word into a sentence before!) seems a little much.

[Minorite invisible]

The Boeing C-17 first flew on September 15 1991. It’s a fine aircraft, one of the best in the World. Like most aircraft it had teething problems in its early days, but those have since been resolved, and turned what was initially called a failure into a great success.

The one aspect where the Boeing C-17 does not shine is its cost. Estimates vary between 190 million to 330 million dollars, according to whom you ask, but all agree it’s an expensive aircraft for the military.

If you compare it in size to a civilian aircraft, it is close to a Boeing 777-200, not in external dimensions, but in Max Take Off Weight, which is the true measure of the size of an aircraft. A Boeing 777-200 costs between 180 and 240 million dollars. The C-17 is in line with its civilian counterparts as far as price.

Where they differ is that the airlines, to be able to pay for such high priced investments, fly them over 5000 hours a year, and do so with fare paying passengers or cargo on board. The military on the other hand, probably fly theirs around 750 hours a year in peacetime, maybe 1500 hours/year in wartime if the United States and Great Britain can be considered at war today.

Because of its very high acquisition cost, no country other than the United States ever purchased the C-17 between 1991 and 2006, during 15 years it was in production. About 180 aircraft were delivered to the United States during that time. In 2000, Great Britain leased 4 C-17s. It had long wanted the aircraft but could not afford to purchase them. It eventually came to a lease agreement with Boeing that more or less fell within its budget. That is what the Britsh taxpayers were led to think anyway. There were huge cost overruns, that were blamed on the war that began the following year. In 2006 the last American orders were about to be delivered and Boeing began considering closing its Long Beach plant that manufactured the C-17 if no more orders came in.

Then out of the blue, after 15 years with zero foreign sales, in a six month period, from March 2006 to September 2006, Great Britain announces that not only it will purchase its 4 leased aircraft but order a fifth, Australia announces the purchase of 4 C-17s, Canada announces it also wants 4 of them and NATO emits a letter of intent for another 4. And everyone needs them yesterday.

What happened suddenly? Did they go on sale? Did everyone suddenly discover how great the aircraft was? Did World War Three begin? Not that I know of.

Then why this sudden interest?

[NoseGunner]

Erm think you might be wrong about WW3 :uhoh:

[FormerFlake]

Why did the RAF lease the four C-17s? Why did the lease include the no AAR clause?


The speed in which the RAF aquired the aircraft and put them to work is one of a few success stories of the last 10 years. Buying them would have led to huge delays.

The reason the RAF does not carry out AAR with the C17 is we do not have any aircraft to refuel them from. The additional costs and hassle of using USAF tankers to refuel from was no doubts taken into account. All 4 RAF C17 have the long range tanks giving them suitable endurance for the task task at hand. The reality is the crews and aircraft would be far too busy to keep up currency anyway. They have a difficult enough time trying to keep crews current in NVG, which is far more important than AR.

Then out of the blue, after 15 years with zero foreign sales, in a six month period, from March 2006 to September 2006, Great Britain announces that not only it will purchase its 4 leased aircraft but order a fifth, Australia announces the purchase of 4 C-17s, Canada announces it also wants 4 of them and NATO emits a letter of intent for another 4. And everyone needs them yesterday.

The RAF was supposed to get it's 5th aircraft in Oct 2003, but it was cancelled because the war(s) were costing too much. Boeing built in huge penalties for going over the contracted hours which the RAF used up very quickly. If the MOD buys the aircraft they do not pay the additional costs for the extra hours. In terms of money, and capability it makes perfect sense to buy the 4 aircraft when the contract runs out. Hardly a conspiracy now is it.

[mystic_meg]

Then out of the blue, after 15 years with zero foreign sales, in a six month period, from March 2006 to September 2006, Great Britain announces that not only it will purchase its 4 leased aircraft but order a fifth
Hardly 'out of the blue' for those at the coalface - was certainly common knowledge way before 2006, and possibly 2005 too, for that matter.

[Minorite invisible]

At the same time one can't wave too much of a flag for the Il-76 because that aircraft is *not* in production - as evidenced by the slow collapse of the recent Chinese order for aircraft that can't be built because the factories have rusted over.
VC

You are not entirely correct here. There are production problems with the IL-76 production in Tashkent, it is true, but they are being addressed by Russia.
Jordan is still waiting for the two they ordered in Aug 2005, and China has yet to see any of the 38 they ordered in Sept 2005. However, the Russian Air Force just took delivery of two Upgraded IL-76, with the Perm PS-90 engines.
Russia pulled out of the Antonov 70 program with the intention of falling back on the new IL-76. I don't see them letting the IL-76 program fall apart also. The Russian press has stated this month that Russia intends to repatriate the plant back on Russian soil to resume production because the production problems at the Tashkent plant are hurting Russian suppliers who manufacture 95% of the IL-76s parts. Plus Moscow needs its own new IL-76s.
The plant was originally in Russia and was only moved to Tashkent during WW 2 to keep it out of the German's reach. They were at the time mostly building the IL-2, a tankbuster, of which they built over 36,000 units.

[brickhistory]

Interesting information, thanks. So then as soon as the factory is moved, production resumes? Ok then, that should be soon.........

It took too long for the light to come on for me on this point, but here it is anyway:

Would you really expect NATO to buy a big ticket item from a non-NATO country? Leaving aside Boeing and any strong-arm tactics that may or may not have been used (what proof is there?), why would the IL be a contender for a NATO purchase?

[Minorite invisible]

Interesting information, thanks. So then as soon as the factory is moved, production resumes? Ok then, that should be soon.........
It took too long for the light to come on for me on this point, but here it is anyway:
Would you really expect NATO to buy a big ticket item from a non-NATO country? Leaving aside Boeing and any strong-arm tactics that may or may not have been used (what proof is there?), why would the IL be a contender for a NATO purchase?

I never said NATO should buy the IL-76. They could Lease 50 of them from Ukraine though, for peanuts. For less than the cost of one C-17.

All I said is when Mr Bilingslea claims "But there are no other aircraft in existence today with those kinds of specifications" he has a very limited view of the World. I guess the IL-76 is built on the planet Mars. By the way that sentence is taken right out of the Boeing Website. Look it up and you will see where this man gets his cues from.

What I do say, is that its odd that NATO suddendly needs Boeing C-17s just when the Boeing plant is facing closure for lack of orders. What a happy coincidence. If you can believe that, why not believe that the item can purchased from Planet Mars or that the Ilyushin plant can produce IL-76s next month?

By the way, the last time the factory was moved in the middle of WW-2, production was barely slowed down, thanks to Stalin breathing down the necks of those in charge of IL-2 production. Its one of the greatest industrial feats in history and it involved this very plant. They did it once already so who knows.....
Stalin had written a telegram to the plant director stating the Soviet Army needed the IL-2 like bread and water it was his last warning.
Stalin also said "It takes a very brave man not to be a hero in the Soviet Army" I guess he held his factory managers to the same standards :}

[JohnFTEng]

I seem to recall - in Flight I think - that Boeing were threatening to close to C-17 production unless they got some new orders. A hurry-up call that soemone decided not to ignore. If something is soon to become "unavailable" it clears the mind of doubts as to fit for purpose, do i really need it, etc.
I this case it worked.

[Violet Club]

You are not entirely correct here...

MI

I respect your search for an alternative to the C-17, but the Il-76 isn't it...at least not in the form of a shiny flock of new-build aircraft.

Russia pulled out of the Antonov 70 program with the intention of falling back on the new IL-76. I don't see them letting the IL-76 program fall apart also.

But that is exactly what has already happened.

The TAPO production line in Uzbekistan hasn't built an Il-76 for years and years. Aircraft have been handed over in ones and twos from a stock of white tails that built up during the 1990s...all rolled out without ever actually being paid for.

There is a ‘plan’ to move the production line to Voronezh - but this is a pipe dream. This entire sector of Russia’s aircraft industry is a bankrupt museum exhibit. Not one rouble has been spent on actually moving the line, and the cost would be enormous. Even the incentive of China's major order hasn't made this happen.

You already make the point that Jordan’s two aircraft have not been handed over – why is that do you think? When, and if, Jordan does get its aircraft they will be scrubbed up and repainted second-hand jets.

The upgraded Russian aircraft are exactly that – UPGRADES. Re-engined pre-existing Il-76s…and how long has that PS-90 project taken? The actual worked stated in 2003 and the plan had been floating around for about 10 years before that.

The Russian press (SPARE ME) is the absolute least authoritative source for information on Russia's aviation industry...just show me one iota of evidence that Il-76 production is being moved from Tashkent. This has been reported for *years* - nothing has happened.

For the Il-76 to be any good to your case it needs to be in production right now. And it just isn’t.

And if the outlook is grim for the Il-76 you can pretty much forget about the An-70. Ukraine can't afford it and Russia will not support it because it's Ukrainian.

The one (crashed and rebuilt) prototype is sitting in a hangar somewhere, rusting. As with the Il-76 there are agreements, intentions-to-order and letters-of-intent up the wazoo regarding the bold future plans for the An-70. Forget them. It’s sad but true that not one meaningful thing has happened to this programme since the first flight back in 1994 (years later than planned).

Unless...the much-rumoured talks between Ukraine and China bear fruit and the An-70 (or something that looks a lot like it) is moved to China. That may well happen and if it does you can forget any NATO customers.

I am with your basic premise on the Canadian situation, but you need to leave the Il-76 and An-70 off your list.

VC

[BombayDuck]

The TAPO production line in Uzbekistan hasn't built an Il-76 for years and years.

True, and Not.

The Indian Air Force has recently bought and is operating 3-6 (not sure of the number that have joined service) Il-78MKIs as air-to-air refuellers for the entire fleet. At least 6 more are on order.

Being a derivative of the Il-76 itself, and that the aircreaft are brand new Uzbeki builds, it means the production lines are up and running.

[Green Flash]

I presume the IL can be re-engined? Listening to them bounce off various bits of desert these last few years I cannot hear myself think when those Tumansky's? get wound up. :ouch: The tree huggers etc would have a hissy fit if they appeared over western Europe.

[Minorite invisible]

I presume the IL can be re-engined? Listening to them bounce off various bits of desert these last few years I cannot hear myself think when those Tumansky's? get wound up. :ouch: The tree huggers etc would have a hissy fit if they appeared over western Europe.

Yes most of the hundreds of IL-76 flying in the world have old noisy and smoky engines, but they have begun to deliver a few re-engined models that meet ICAO Stage IV noise and pollution certification standards, but there are only about 4 or 5 of those flying as yet.

[LowObservable]

Google Earth 41.18'05" N 69.19'32.59 E
Whole lot of Il-76s, but someone has not paid the bill for the last batch of engines.
Follow the road NE from the factory to find the airport.

[StopStart]

Interesting Google Earth thingy....

Am I being a biff or have they foolishly built a main road and town between the factory and the airport? Someone should tell the chaps in the factory to stop churing out the new aircraft......

[Minorite invisible]

A few weeks ago I decided to post all the information I gathered on Canada's purchase of the C-17 on a blog. I also posted a couple letters I wrote on the subject and I will continue to make more posts as I gather more info.
This is not about NATO but about Canada but there probably is a lot in common.

http://boeingc17.********.com/

[Violet Club]

True, and Not.
The Indian Air Force has recently bought and is operating 3-6 (not sure of the number that have joined service) Il-78MKIs as air-to-air refuellers for the entire fleet. At least 6 more are on order.
Being a derivative of the Il-76 itself, and that the aircreaft are brand new Uzbeki builds, it means the production lines are up and running.

Recently – as in ordered in 2001?

Well, the IAF currently has at least seven Il-78Ms (RK3448-3454) delivered since 2003 but that in itself is not evidence that there is a production line up and running.

The TAPO plant has a stock of unwanted aircraft sitting on the ground that it has progressively been selling off. That is where everyone who has acquired Il-76s recently has received them from. The Indian aircraft were certainly new when they were built but they are not newly built...and were not even built as 'proper' Il-78s.

LowObservable's Google Earth link shows everything you need to know about the humming production lines at Tashkent...

I am not denigrating the Il-76 – all I'm saying is that if you plan to base your future airlift strategy on buying a big bunch of new aircraft then you need to think again.

VC

[MarkD]

minorite

If you compare it in size to a civilian aircraft, it is close to a Boeing 777-200, not in external dimensions, but in Max Take Off Weight, which is the true measure of the size of an aircraft. A Boeing 777-200 costs between 180 and 240 million dollars. The C-17 is in line with its civilian counterparts as far as price.

Comparing a C-17 to a 777 based on MTOW? How about runway length? How about outsize loads? How about defensive aids? How about a ramp and how much weight can the floor take? Can you put it on a dirt strip. Do me a favour. Maybe we should just buy Transat's 310s and that will do eh?

The RAAF, RAF #5 and CF took some of the last available slots on the line *which had already had parts ordered* so Boeing would have been left with white tails if they hadn't taken them. I imagine Boeing didn't have much to leverage the price with.

Re: the Ukraine lease - will those 1/50 cost leases have the same "no loud noises nearby" clauses as the initial and soon to be done RAF leases to which you refer? RAF only leased because they needed an A400M stopgap - then they were flying the crap out of them, the A400M slipped to the right and the RAF AT requirement mushroomed.

As for the NATO deal - NATO as a grouping aren't buying in the way I read it - 13 NATO member countries are. The SALIS deal remains in place. Canada does not appear to be participating.

Oh and as for "why the sudden interest in C-17" - well, look at a map of Afg. and point out the seaports. Previous hotspots like Sierra Leone and Iraq have them - rock up with carriers and assault ships, secure them and offload. Afg doesn't.

[bootscooter]

minorite
Re: the Ukraine lease - will those 1/50 cost leases have the same "no loud noises nearby" clauses as the initial and soon to be done RAF leases to which you refer? .


What is meant by "no loud noises nearby"?:confused:

[MarkD]

bootscooter - from a UK parliamentary answer: "the threat assessment presented by surface-to-air missiles, specifically to identifiable military aircraft, limited our use of RAF aircraft operating into Afghanistan." The point being that leased CF AN-124s would be "identifiable military aircraft" as opposed to chartered where the operator is paid danger money but it's his aircraft at hazard not DND's.

previous, similar thread relating to C-17s and Canadian Forces (as opposed to NATO):
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=231644

[Minorite invisible]

minorite
Comparing a C-17 to a 777 based on MTOW?

I thought it was clear and didn't think I would have to explain that here, but here it is:

If you line up a C-17 next to a B777, it looks much smaller. By looking at them, the C-17 seems to be about the size of an Airbus 310-300 or rather a Boeing 767-300.

However, when you compare their respective take-off weights, its closer to the externally much larger B777-200.

Boeing C-17 Length 174 feet Wingspan 169 feet MTOW 585,000 lbs
Boeing 767-300ER Length 180 feet Wingspan 156 feet MTOW 412,000 lbs
Airbus A-310 Length 153 feet Wingspan 144 feet MTOW 361,000 lbs
Boeing 777-200 Length 209 feet Winspan 199 feet MTOW 545,000 lbs

The true measure of comparing two aircraft in size it not in external dimensions but in Take off weight. A bomber, may look even smaller because its fuselage is made to carry small heavy items but it may have a MTOW superior to another aircraft that LOOKS twice its size but which is not.

CLEAR?

[bootscooter]

bootscooter - from a UK parliamentary answer: "the threat assessment presented by surface-to-air missiles, specifically to identifiable military aircraft, limited our use of RAF aircraft operating into Afghanistan."

I may well have got the wrong end of the stick, but I thought in your earlier post you were suggesting that the lease terms specified that UK C17s were not allowed to go anywhere "dangerous"....

[Minorite invisible]

MI
The TAPO production line in Uzbekistan hasn't built an Il-76 for years and years. Aircraft have been handed over in ones and twos from a stock of white tails that built up during the 1990s...all rolled out without ever actually being paid for.
There is a ‘plan’ to move the production line to Voronezh - but this is a pipe dream


From http://enews.ferghana.ru/article.php?id=1684

Russian military leadership does not rule out the possibility that IL-76 MFs will be assembled in Uzbekistan

07.11.2006 22:09 msk

Vladimir Georgiyev

The Tashkent Aircraft Manufacturer named after Valery Chkalov is given a chance. The decision to shift assembly of IL-76 transports from Uzbekistan to Russia hasn't been made yet. Two senior officials of the Russian state confirm indirectly that it may never be made.

General of the Army Aleksei Moskovsky, Chief of the Armaments of the Russian Armed Forces, told Feghana.Ru the other day that the decision to shift assembly of the planes to Russia hadn't been made. "I wouldn't speak of any dates," Moskovsky said. "The Ulianovsk Aircraft Manufacturer (Aviastar) is developing facilities for assembly of this type of planes too. Needless to say, the process is going to take time and will be quite expensive. So far as I know, the Economic Development Ministry and Industry and Fuel Ministry have included these costs in their investment programs. All the same, the process will take a great deal of investments and time. Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov visited the factory not long ago [this summer - Ferghana.Ru]. This was one of the matters discussed during the visit."

It follows that IL-76 military transport planes and their modifications may eventually be assembled both in Uzbekistan and in Russia. That Moscow views the Tashkent Aircraft Manufacturer as a partner assembling IL-76s is also confirmed by the words of Alexander Denisov of the Federal Service for Military-Technical Cooperation at Airshow China'2006.

Answering the question about the IL-76 contract with China, Denisov admitted existence of problems but said that "these problems will be solved and the contract will be fulfilled on time." Since the factory in Tashkent is the only one at this point where IL-76s are assembled, it follows that this is where the contract will be fulfilled. Spokesmen for the Russian aviation industry were upset not long ago that the Tashkent Aircraft Manufacturer was behind the schedule with the Chinese contract for 38 IL-76s and IL-78s flying tankers worth almost $1.5 billion. Aware of the danger to the contract, the Russians began speculating over transfer of IL production from Tashkent to Ulianovsk. It seems that Moscow changed its mind.

Uzbek and Russian leaders must have drawn conclusions. Some personnel changes took place. Russia dispatched a large group of specialists to Tashkent to help the Uzbeks with the Chinese contract. President of Uzbekistan Islam Karimov (he had worked at the Tashkent Aircraft Manufacturer in the past) sacked Vadim Kucherov, General Director of the Tashkent Aircraft Manufacturer since 1995. Kucherov was replaced with Utkir Sultanov, one of the most powerful men in the president's inner circle. Advisor to the prime minister, Sultanov himself was a deputy premier once in charge of mechanical engineering, metallurgy, oil and gas complex, development of deposits, energy sphere, chemical industry, and contacts with the Russian military-industrial complex. In fact, Sultanov had been the prime minister between 1995 and 2003. Known as a seasoned administrator, he is probably believed capable of fulfillment of the Chinese contract.

Staff changes, however, cannot be expected to solve all problems of the Tashkent Aircraft Manufacturer. If it is to survive, the Uzbek factory will probably have to be integrated into the United Aircraft Company Russia is putting together. Moscow and Tashkent ponder the idea. The price of the factory privatization is the only issue Russia and Uzbekistan seem to be unable to reach an agreement on.

Ferghana.Ru news agency

[Minorite invisible]

MI
I respect your search for an alternative to the C-17, but the Il-76 isn't it...at least not in the form of a shiny flock of new-build aircraft.
VC

Just to let you know I quoted your post on my blog:

http://boeingc17.********.com/2006/11/pipe-dream-this-is-what-someone-posted.html

[Minorite invisible]

For those sceptics who still think that C-17s are being purchased now because NATO really needs them, here is a chronology of some events as they took place in Canada and how they led to the purchase of the C-17.

On November 22 2005, General Rick Hillier, Canada's Chief of the Defence Staff, and Liberal Defence Minister Bill Graham 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/view_news_e.asp?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 General Hillier 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 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 yet 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 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, Conservative, Pro-Bush, Pro-Iraq war, Pro-Israel 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, CADSI (https://www.defenceandsecurity.ca/public/) organised its annual CANSEC military show at Ottawa
(https://www.defenceandsecurity.ca/public/index.asp?action=events.cansec) where a Boeing C-17 was on display.

- In May 2006, the Conservative government imposes a surprise vote in Parliament on the 2 year extention of the Canadian mission in Afghanistan without a debate. The NDP vote against, the Liberals are devided so the motion passes. The Conservatives shift Canada's role in Afghanistant from peacekeeping and rebuilding to agressive Taliban hunting alongside UK and US forces. Most Canadians are against this, yet the Governement immitates other governments in UK, Spain, Japan and Italy that sent troops into combat against their electorates' wishes to score political points with Washington.

- In June 2006, the Canadian Air Force had written in record time Version 1.0 of a Statement of Operational requirements for 4 Boeing C-17s. They normally take years to write up such documents. This one just popped out of nowhere 2 months after the C-17 visit.
(http://www.forces.gc.ca/admmat/dgmpd/acps/docs/acps_sor_e.pdf) Read about it in this Blog at:http://boeingc17.********.com/2006/10/statement-of-operational-requirement.html

- In July 2006, one month later, 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, the following month, 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. As I write these lines, 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. All we know is that their aircraft did not meet the SOR. So much for transparency and fair and open processes. (http://news.gc.ca/cfmx/view/en/index.jsp?articleid=232429)

To conclude, between February 2006 and August 2006, in six months, somthing unheard of in Canadian Military history in peacetime, 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 for their constituants. Benefits were promised and everyone stayed quiet. http://boeingc17.********.com/2006/11/taxpayers-money-subsidising-industrial.html

It is during those same six months that Australia's Howard ordered 4 C-17s, Blairs' UK bought the 4 it already leased and ordered a fifth, and NATO.
The NATO members who signed on are mostly from Eastern Europes' new members (except for Denmark The Netherlands, and Italy) who feel the need protection of the US against the Russians who are showing teeth again. All the countries who signed on to the C-17 are part of the "Willing" who went into Iraq with the USA.

Why dont any of the countries not member of the "Willing" feel they urgently need C-17s?

Am I seing ghosts or is there really something there ?

[FormerFlake]

Why dont any of the countries not member of the "Willing" feel they urgently need C-17s?

It is quite simple. The 'Willing' are some of the most active air forces in the World. And for the imediate future will continue to fight battle as long way from home. They need them!!



The C17 is the best choice for STRAT AT for a NATO country.

[MarkD]

minorite - there was a change of govt in your timeline. When Goodale was Min of Fin he wasn't going to pay for 130s AND 17s so Hillier had to pick one and not complain.

The Tories come in and say "if you want both, you can have them. Our best buds in Oz, John Howard, who got his bid in first will give you C-17 slots to get them to you quicker." Why wouldn't Hillier change his mind, especially when without the Australian agreement the C-17s wouldn't probably have met the time specified in the requirements as the A400M didn't?

Canada is not a junta - CDSs have taken it in the neck from the civilians for as long as there have been State armies and I'm sure the current CDS knew that when the Libs offered the job. That means taking what you're given and keeping your mouth shut until retirement when you can write a book and be a hired gun for CBC Newsworld.

As for what CDS meant by guaranteed and whether SALIS provided this I would suggest you enquire of Gen Hillier rather than inferring. I don't know what he meant either but in a military context I would contend guaranteed is only a word you can use when you own, not when a contractor can renege.

[Minorite invisible]

I don't know what he meant either but in a military context I would contend guaranteed is only a word you can use when you own, not when a contractor can renege.

Or when your US supplier reneges:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-16-fms.htm

There exists an ongoing potential for turning-off maintenance and technological support for US high-tech weapons to countries that have fallen out of political favor with America. Combat effectiveness is a function of sophisticated weapons, and the the maintenance and support that keeps them operational. The cutoff in maintenance support was so effective against Iran that most of their most capable air defense interceptor -- the F-14 Tomcat -- became spare parts bins after US support was terminated.

In May 2006 Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez accused the United States of blocking the sale of replacement parts for Venezuela's F-16 fighter jets and U.S. authorities have moved to block military sales to Caracas from Brazil and Spain. Chavez say he was considering the purchase of Russian Sukhoi airplanes, after US efforts to prevent Venezuela from buying military aircraft from other countries.

On 15 May 2006 the United States will suspend the sale and retransfers of U.S. arms to the Andean nation, according to the U.S. Department of State. The State Department certified to the U.S. Congress that Venezuela was "not fully cooperating" with U.S. anti-terrorism efforts, a designation that State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said was well earned. "They have been placed on this list and they have earned their spot honestly," he said. McCormack cited Venezuela's cultivation of relationships with state sponsors of terror, such as Cuba and Iran, and he indicated that these relationships have hindered intelligence-sharing and anti-terrorism cooperation with Venezuela. "Now, if you're developing a much closer intelligence-sharing relationship with a state sponsor of terror, I think it's only reasonable that the United States is going to say, 'Wait a minute.' We don't know if we can reasonably cooperate with that sort of state because we are worried about a variety of consequences, including the sharing with a state sponsor of terror of information that we have provided on that very subject, trying to fight terror," he explained. The "not fully cooperating" designation will end all commercial arms sales and retransfers to Venezuela.

So unless we are assuming that we will always fall in line with US Foreign Affairs positions (YOU ARE EITHER WITH US OR AGAINST US), no one seems to have "guaranteed" use of their hardware, unless they manufacture it and every one of its components.

[brickhistory]

So unless we are assuming that we will always fall in line with US Foreign Affairs positions (YOU ARE EITHER WITH US OR AGAINST US), no one seems to have "guaranteed" use of their hardware, unless they manufacture it and every one of its components.

Hmm, putting Canada in the same league with Chavez' Venezuela and post-Shah Iran. Interesting world view.

You know you are right. You should buy the other guy's in-production strat airlifter and hope they'll do right by you. Let us know how that works out for you.

[Minorite invisible]

You want me to give you list of examples on how quickly "Western" powers, such as Canada, Germany, France, who opposed the US position on Iraq quickly gave the US a bone to chew on, to appease US fury at their opposition? These countries fear the US, its political, military and economical might, and quickly cowered to the US in many ways after receiving not too veiled threats.
Altough the US would not attack these countries in a military fashion, France, Canada and Germany were attacked in other ways and gave in, to some extent.

[brickhistory]

Excellent points.

So buy the other guy's equipment; their policies are completely different (i.e., self-interests first) and it's just as good.

Free will and all that........

[Minorite invisible]

Why shouln't we? Even Uncle Sam does, when it serves his interests.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/05/22/warms22.xml

[brickhistory]

No arguement from me.

I'd bet even the same factory can spit out 5.56mm rounds one day and wing spars on the next.


Fly safe!

[SASless]

n May 2006 Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez accused the United States of blocking the sale of replacement parts for Venezuela's F-16 fighter jets and U.S. authorities have moved to block military sales to Caracas from Brazil and Spain. Chavez say he was considering the purchase of Russian Sukhoi airplanes, after US efforts to prevent Venezuela from buying military aircraft from other countries.

Perhaps some folks are living in a cave out there without any access to the media (of any kind) and think there is no basis for the USA to have a reason to be a wee tad miffed with Senor Chavez and crew?

Personally, I am in favor of sending him more American made arms.....right squarely upon the top of his head! Tin Pot loud mouths get a bit boring after a fashion. A 2000 pound JDAM into his bedroom window one night would cure Big Mouth of his irksome ways.

[Minorite invisible]

It’s easy to play on Cold War propaganda myths that all Russian aircraft is junk and all that comes from the US is good. It sells aircraft too to maintain such legends. Let the accident and production figures speak.

Go to http://aviation-safety.net/

A few examples of popular aircraft

US made aircraft

Out of 284 Lockheed 141 Starlifter manufactured, 21 were lost in crashes (15%)
Out of 131 Lockheed C5 Galaxy manufactured, 6 were lost in crashes (4.6%)
Out of 2159 Lockheed C-130s and L-100s (the civilian version) manufactured, 326 crashed (15%)
Out of 858 Boeing 707s built, 166 crashed (19.3%)
Boeing 727-200, 1114 manufactured 101 crashes, (9%).
Douglas DC-8, 556 produced, 83 lost (15%)


On the Eastern bloc:

Out 287 Ilyushin 62 built, 21 crashed, (7.3%)
Out of 1243 AN-12s manufactured, 158 were lost (12.7%)
Out of 57 Antonov 124 strategic aircraft manufactured, 4 were lost (7%)
Antonov 72/74, 169 built, 8 crashes (4.7%)
Tupolev 154, 923 built, 63 crashes (6.8%)
Out of 938+ Ilyushin 76 strategic/tactical aircraft manufactured, 54 were lost (5.7 %)

Does anyone see a large discrepancy between the Super advanced US products and the ancient Russian ones? I don’t.

Its true that Russia's aviation industry is in a deep crisis right now, and they are behind in certain areas, but to claim that their technology is junk just doesn't hold water.

[Minorite invisible]

Perhaps some folks are living in a cave out there without any access to the media (of any kind) and think there is no basis for the USA to have a reason to be a wee tad miffed with Senor Chavez and crew?
Personally, I am in favor of sending him more American made arms.....right squarely upon the top of his head! Tin Pot loud mouths get a bit boring after a fashion. A 2000 pound JDAM into his bedroom window one night would cure Big Mouth of his irksome ways.

Thats exactly the kind of thinking I was talking about when I mentionned not too veiled threats coming from Americans, altough since you are not a politician, the threat is not veiled here. You guys have become so accustomed to bombing countries and people that you now find it normal and acceptable to bomb everyone and anyone, and your "friends" imitate you. Even democrats like the idea of bombing their friends when they dont agree with the US line, or in this case, even when we do agree, since Harper sided with the US in the following example of a statement made by Senator Hilary Clinton last summer:

"I want us here in New York to imagine if extremist terrorists were launching rocket attacks across the Mexican or Canadian border, would we stand by or would we defend America against these attacks from extremists?" i.e. bomb Canada

This bombing mentality is what is making the American led coalitions fail in Iraq and Afghanistan. Sure you have the most powerful military and are going to win every battle militarily, like you did in Vietnam, but you are going to loose on all other fronts as in Vietnam.

I have news for you SASless: When an Iraqi or Afghan insurgent sniper shoots from a living room window at "coalition" troops, its' not from his own living room. He does it from someone elses, after forcing his way in at gunpoint. Then he runs out the back door, knowing full well that those he shot at are not going to engage in a risky firefight with him, but keep their heads low and call in an air strike, which will come in the next few minutes and kill the family on which the sniper imposed himself. Sometimes he dies too. Then the press comes and counts the dead women and children in the house, and the neighbours come to help dig out the corpses. The sniper sacrifices that familiy, but his act combined with the air strike, will recruit another 100 insurgents to his cause, and the insurgency just snowballs, no matter how loud the coalition press officer tries to tell the World that all those women and children corpses were those of insurgents. This scenario happens several times a month in both countries.
So keep bombing, guys, keep bombing everyone........... Someday you will eventually get it.

Here is the latest in the trend :
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20061115/news_1n15afghan.html
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2006/12/08/iraq-wrap.html

Or better yet, read this, it will give you a different perspective than Fox News:
http://www.cursor.org/stories/grabnews.html

[brickhistory]

And the inevitable slide to Jet Blast begins.....

mi,

I am not getting into a political debate with you.

My point has simply been that your government, as ably described by others on this thread, decided it needed airlift. From there, looking at the options available now, it went with the C-17.

NATO has taken on tasks that require a boost in its organic airlift now. From the options available, it is apparently choosing Boeing (any money actually put forward?). Considering an airframe from outside NATO seems a tad farfetched. Did it have to be US? No. Who else has one now?

Edited to add: I never claimed that Russian aircraft is junk nor do I read anyone else doing so. I also question using the statistics you list. For the US manufacturers, apparently you are including all operators of say, the 727 or the C-130. And for the Soviet/Russian figures, how accurate are those figures. Ivan wasn't exactly forthcoming during the Cold War.

I'd love for Canada, Britain, et al to have a fully robust, independent aerospace capability to design and build their own airlifters. Imagine what such competition could do for both innovation and costs. But, they don't. So the reality is only a few build such aircraft now. Which is apparently when the customers want them.

I'm not a big believer in conspiracy theories. To think that the big bad US is behind everything seems, to me, to be in that vein.

[Minorite invisible]

I also question using the statistics you list. For the US manufacturers, apparently you are including all operators of say, the 727 or the C-130. And for the Soviet/Russian figures, how accurate are those figures. Ivan wasn't exactly forthcoming during the Cold War.

The Statistics are direct unedited quotes from the Website I mentionned. I just picked a few popular models that had been around for a while.

As for the conspiracy theory. This is not about UFOs.

Here is the first article that I read in the Canadian Press that caught my attention. It appeared in the April 21 2006 issue of the Globe and Mail. Michael Den Tandt wrote the following:

"The requirements (Air Force requirements for the Strategic Aircraft) would state that the aircraft must also have tactical or short-haul capability, which the C-17 does, to ease pressure on the badly outdated Hercules fleet. That requirement would rule out the Russian-built Antonov, which the Canadian military has rented to deploy its Disaster Assistance Response Team. Unlike the C-17, which can land on rough runways as short as 900 metres, the Antonov requires 3,000 metres of paved strip."

As a pilot I noticed the comparison was wrong. It compares the landing run of a partially loaded C-17 to the take-off balanced field length of a fully loaded AN-124. Fair comparison?
The article also fails to mention the IL-76, which can land and take-off much shorter than the AN-124s and which Canada uses the most often, altough in less publicised flights.

In another Article, Boeing claimed as an example that the C-17 had a longer range than the Antonov at max payload. That is true, when both are fully loaded with their respective maximum payload, 120 tons for the Antonov, 77 tons for the C-17. However, when you put the maximum load that a C-17 can carry (77 tons) on an Antonov 124, the Antonov flies much farther. But who worries about such trivial details….

If we go back to the Boeing C-17 website and look in a news release titled “Boeing C-17 Program Receives Aviation Week Quality Award” it is written: Used for both military and humanitarian missions, the C-17 is the world's only airlift aircraft with both tactical and strategic capabilities. Is it really? You think the Boeing people never heard of the IL-76? This same statement was repeated at the NATO press conference by Mr Billingslea.

Here is what a DND person gave me as an explanation for justifying the C-17:

How many Canadian airports can the different lifters can land at?

Airports - with paved runways: total: 508
over 3,047 m: 18
2,438 to 3,047 m: 15
1,524 to 2,437 m: 151
914 to 1,523 m: 247
under 914 m: 77
Airports - with unpaved runways: total: 823
1,524 to 2,437 m: 66
914 to 1,523 m: 351
under 914 m: 406

Aircraft Runway Take off Length % of CDN Airports C-17 1,064 m 51.089%
AN-124-100 2,800 m 1.126%
Il-76 1,700 m 35.762%

That argumention might have impressed a journalist, but not a pilot. He claims here that with a take off distance of 1,064 meters, the C-17 can use 51% of Canadian airports, where the AN-124 at 2,800 meters can only use 1.126% and the IL-76 which needs 1,700 meters can only use 35%. Here again, if the C-17 can take-off in 1,064 meters, it is only at reduced weight, but it needs, according to the Boeing Website, 2,300 meters to take-off a Max Gross weights. The take-off distance of a light C-17 is compared to the take-off distances of the AN-124 and the IL-76 at MTOGW. In reality, the IL-76 takes off shorter than the C-17 when both are a Max Gross weight. Minor detail…….

In October, the DND shipped some Leopard tanks to Kandahar. They chartered AN-124s to fly them to Manas, and from there put them on C-17s for the final leg to Kandahar, a weird detour. A General Benjamin testified in front of a Senate Committee that this dog leg was done because the AN-124 cannot land in Kandahar and that “the C-17s are the only large aircraft that can land in Kandahar, and that this is a big showstopper for us”.

I checked my own sources and found out that not only the AN-124s can land in Kandahar, that they have landed there before and an insider to one of the companies that flew the Leopards to Manas confirmed that they took the Leopards there not because of any limitations associated with the AN-124s but because that is where DND asked them to take the tanks.

A DND insider I said this to then suggested that this was because there are still many unexploded devices around the airport and there is no safe place to “Park” the very large AN-124 at Kandahar which cannot manoeuvre on the ground in tight places like the C-17 can. Right……. The C-17 can sing and dance too.

In another article I read printed by a Canadian Think Tank, author David Rudd states that Canada could not possible buy IL-76s because they are not Transport Canada certified. That argument was widely quoted in the Canadian press to explain the C-17 choice. Well it so happens that the C-17 is not Transport Canada certified either, nor is it FAA certified. Military aircraft do not need to be certified to civilian standards and I have an email from someone in the Certification office of the Air Force that told me the IL-76 could meet CF certification standards, although it would take more time than to buy a C-17. So much for that argument…. but the article and the quotes remain.

In a Sept 2005 report published by Canada’s Senate Committee on National Security and Defence titled “Our Disappearing Options for Defending the Nation Abroad and at Home” it is written:

“Since the Polaris does not have the capacity or the Hercules the range to get Canadian personnel and equipment to far-off places quickly, we are often forced to rent. What we rent are often rickety old planes from suppliers in Russia and the Ukraine, mostly Antonovs. There aren’t many Antonovs still flying, and those that are don’t have much life span left. Moreover, they have uncomfortable similarities to the Yakovlev-42 that crashed in Turkey last year, killing 62 Spanish peacekeepers.[117] As a matter of policy, the Canadian Forces use them only for transporting cargo, not personnel.”

The rickety old Antonovs they rent were all built between 1991 and 2004. They are all younger than most of the Air Force’s aircraft in Canada including all it’s A-310, Auroras, Hercules and CF-18s. Only four AN-124s crashed out of 56 built, which does not allow one to say that “there aren’t many still flying”. 25 of them are flying commercially, the balance are in the Russian Air Force. I also looked up the Yak-42 accident. It was a CFIT after the pilots attempted several approaches below minimums in Turkey. This accident disqualifies the AN-124 no more than the US Air Force B-737 crash in Croatia some years ago, also a CFIT, disqualifies the C-17. And finally the real reason the CF cannot put personnel in AN-124s is that their cargo cabin is only partially pressurised which is why NO ONE puts personnel in them, including the Russians. They were built to carry cargo, not troops. This same report makes no mention of even the existence of the IL-76, which happens to be the Airlifter most often rented by the CF. This Senate Report is nothing but B/S for all that pertains to airlifting.
This same Senate Committee wrote another report in June 2006. In March 2006, Canada joined SALIS. The June report was attempting to explain why SALIS was not adequate for Canada and why we needed C-17s anyway:

"This agreement is clearly a short-term solution for our European allies while they are waiting for their A400Ms. But it is not a good solution for Canada, even on an interim basis. Since the aircraft will be based in Europe, response times to Canada will be longer than they are for other participants. In a crisis involving more than one of the participants, Canada would likely have to wait its turn to gain access to this limited pool of aircraft. When the program expires Canada is likely going to be left to its own devices since many of the other participating nations are planning to purchase A400Ms. One other problem: there is no guarantee that this commercial entity will remain viable over the long term or that the approximately 20 aging aircraft that make up this fleet will be replaced when their lifetimes expire."

Aging AN-124s again. A Canadian company, Skylink, offered to the CF to base two IL-76s and two AN-124s in Trenton, the base where the C-17s are to be based, for 42 millions Can dollars a year, for the exclusive use of the 4 aircraft at 400 hours per year per aircraft. This arrangement would have provided a solution to all the points stated in the Senate report, but the Skylink offer was refused. Instead we are going to spend about 250 million dollars a year on the 4 C-17s.

That same report further states:

"Strategic airlift is at present and will likely remain a scarce commodity around the world. If Canada had this capability, we would be in a position to provide welcome, rapid, visible and relatively economical assistance in a wide array of military and other crises."

Economical assistance? C-17s are going to cost Canadian taxpayers about 40,000$ an hour to fly. We charter AN-124s for 20,000$ US an hour and they carry almost twice the load. How can a C-17 be economical?

And although there are only 25 commercial AN-124s there are about 250 commercial IL-76s in the World. They are far from scarce.

Then they add:

"The US maintains a fleet of more than 300 large airlifters (a mix of the C-5 Galaxy and the C-17 Globemaster), and even at that, occasionally finds the need to use commercial resources for less critical or less dangerous missions."

For the time being, it is the chartered civilian aircraft that do the “dangerous flying” for the CF, not the other way around. While the CF flies it’s A-310s only as far as “Camp Mirage” in some top secret location in an “undisclosed Arabic Nation” that is no secret to anyone, they wont go further because they claim their A-310 have no countermeasures. So DND leases civilian IL-76s to do the flights into Kandahar for them, in aircraft that also have no countermeasures. Even DHL flies into Kandahar with civilian jets. That sort of puts a hole in that argument doesn’t it?

The real reason the CF don’t fly their Airbus into Kandahar is not because they fear doing it but to put pressure on the political bosses to get C-17s (which will have countermeasures). While they hold back the A-310, they use their CC-130s as a strategic Aircraft on milk runs between Camp Mirage and Kandahar and complain that their CC-130s are overused and need to be replaced too.

Back in 2003, DND had already toyed with the idea of purchasing or Leasing 6 Boeing C-17 aircraft. This was called the Future Strategic Airlift Project (FSA).

This project was halted in October 2003 by then Minister of National Defence John McCallum who stated:

In terms of demonstrating responsible management, I have made it crystal clear that Canada will not be unilaterally purchasing strategic airlift for the Canadian Forces. Only two NATO nations, the US and the UK have this capability. For a country of Canada’s size, it is simply not an effective use of resources. Over the past six fiscal years, Canada has spent approximately $107 million in strategic airlift, an average of $18 million per year. This is but a mere fraction of the annual interest on the cost of our own strategic airlift – let alone the capital cost [$3.5 billion]

There you have it. We had spent on average 18 million dollars a year leasing airlifters, and we go from there to a 4 Billion purchase (today’s price). Interest alone on the four 300 million C-17s is going to cost over 50 million dollars a year.

These are just a few examples. Anytime the press wrote anything about the need for the C-17s, the arguments provided contained biased info provided by God knows whom.

I love Boeing aircraft. I have about 2,500 flight time in them, out of 12,000 hours TT. I just think that if the C-17 purchase was Kosher, the authorities wouldn’t need to lie, misinform, distort, exaggerate or twist the truth to sell the C-17 to the Canadian public. Plus they would have called for tenders, which they didn’t. Conspiracy? No. But very fishy.

[StopStart]

MI

I would question those stats of hull loses – I reckon there must be about 158 wrecked AN12s in Afghanistan alone!

Similarly, the AN124 has been unable to land at Kandahar because of work on the runway. The runway has only had half it’s width available. The C17 is far more manoeuvrable on the ground too.

Your arguments about civilian aircraft going into Kandahar et al are to do with insurance and balance of risk. The DND are obviously aware of the threat and aren’t prepared to risk the lives of their assets (materiel and people) sending them into high threat areas. The IL76 operators on the other hand are. They can find people that will take the risk for the money and they operate hard wearing and cheap aircraft with the minimum maintenance standards. Believe me, I’ve seen them.

It’s nothing to do with pressurising the Govt to buy C17 – I’ll hazard a guess that the CANFOR A310 pilots are very happy with the current arrangement.

As the poster above, I have no real time for conspiracy theories. At the end of the day, the AF is getting a capable and well defended aircraft and the troops can get into theatre safely. That the govt is willing to pay big bucks for an off shelf purchase is also a good thing. A full tender process and then the inevitable years of fannying around afterwards would just delay what the capability that the troops deserve.

[GreenKnight121]

Another point about those loss statistics... the best designed & built aircraft in the world will crash if flown by lower-skilled & trained pilots, and maintained by lesser-skilled & trained mechanics.

If you look at when, where, and by whom those aircraft were wrecked, you will find that most occured after the aircraft left their well-run US, Canadian, British, & European airlines and went into service with airlines with far lower standards of piloting and repair!


That is also true of many of the Russian/USSR-built aircraft... they tended to do a fair bit better when Aeroflot & Warsaw Pact airlines operated them than when Soviet client-states did.



One thing I would ask you to compare, however... the average service-life of those respective types... in both flight-hours and in elapsed years.

You know, durability and longevity.

[Minorite invisible]

Another point about those loss statistics... the best designed & built aircraft in the world will crash if flown by lower-skilled & trained pilots, and maintained by lesser-skilled & trained mechanics.

If you look at when, where, and by whom those aircraft were wrecked, you will find that most occured after the aircraft left their well-run US, Canadian, British, & European airlines and went into service with airlines with far lower standards of piloting and repair!

That is also true of many of the Russian/USSR-built aircraft... they tended to do a fair bit better when Aeroflot & Warsaw Pact airlines operated them than when Soviet client-states did.

One thing I would ask you to compare, however... the average service-life of those respective types... in both flight-hours and in elapsed years.

You know, durability and longevity.

You are correct in both points. In the 90s, a bunch of LET-410s began arriving in Central America. They had been the East Blocs’ principal 19 seat commuter, built in Prague. They were fine and rugged machines, built like a truck, but most of them arrived with surprisingly low airframe hours, 3 to 4000, although they were often over 10 years old or more. No commuter aircraft in the West flies 2 to 300 hours a year. I was told that this was because East Bloc airlines they did not really buy their aircraft but were "issued" them as the aircraft were pumped out of the factory, regardless of their needs.

I just don’t know much about how many hours East Block airframes typically have when they are old and retired. I’ve seen Western aircraft with over 80,000 hours. Have any East Block aircraft ever reached such numbers, maybe some readers here could inform us. However, I read somewhere that some of the Indian Air Force IL-76 purchased in the 80s, arrived at their 30,000 hour service life.

I’ve been making a point about East Block aircraft for a while, though on deaf ears. How would they fare if operated and maintained by a western company with western standards? There are three Kamov commercial helicopters registered in Canada which are doing very well and have logged over 5000 hours since arriving in Canada. The owners are thrilled with them. Some friends of mine have been operating the LET-410 in Central America for over 10 years. They are thrilled with them too. Their turbines, Walter 601s, have much lower TBOs than say, a PT-6, but they also cost much less to overhaul, which evened it out.

My point is this:

Many countries, armed forces, and NGOs are using chartered aircraft such as IL-76s, AN-32, AN-74s, AN-22s today. NATO, the UN, the Red Cross, the Canadian Air Force etc. They are cheap and available. Many of the problems associated with these aircraft are not aircraft, manufacturer or design related but operator related: yet we need these aircraft. Why not put them in the hands of reliable western operators? Some are its true. Most aren’t. The two choices are not C-17s flown by clean cut Canadians or IL-76s flown by drunk people with questionable competence and ethics. We could have as a third option the clean cut Canadians (not necessarily military) operating and maintaining superbly maintained and operated IL-76.

But that seems to be a NO-NO, not only in Canada but in most of the western world. Yet we continue leasing the IL-76 flown by shady operators.

[FormerFlake]

MI,

I'm not quite sure what you have against the C17, not saying your 100% wrong or anything, just puzzled by the effort your going too. A few questions for you:

1. Have you factored in additional cost for putting NATO spec coms equipment into the Russian aircraft? Boeing do not even supply if for the C17, it comes direct from the USAF, but at least it is 'bolt on' with the C17.

2. What about servicing costs? Spares costs, availability?

3. DAS costs and standards? The C17 has pretty good DAS, and it will be upgraded further still. It also has OBIGS and cockpit armour too.

4. How quickly can the Russian offerings be re-rolled? Do they always carry all the kit with them like the C17? The C17 is very flexible and can be re-rolled in minutes.

5. How much parking space are they going to use? This we a factor when the USAF switched to C17s. They quite simply got traffic jams at busy airports during operations using the C5 and C141.

6. What components and software are shared between the C17 and C130s and what cost (tools, pallets, PFPS, LAIRCM, Flares etc) and training will this save.


The problem with the military is the support always costs 10 x more than it should and offers about 10% of the effectiveness/efficiency it should. These costs could well have added up far too high for the Russian equipment.

99 Sqn have a team of Boeing reps permanently on the Sqn, not saying they will stay for ever, but the support is there. Will Antonov or Ilyushin offer that level of support?


Do your stats for aircraft loses take into account the flying hours?

[Minorite invisible]

MI,

I'm not quite sure what you have against the C17, not saying your 100% wrong or anything, just puzzled by the effort your going too. A few questions for you:

1. Have you factored in additional cost for putting NATO spec coms equipment into the Russian aircraft? Boeing do not even supply if for the C17, it comes direct from the USAF, but at least it is 'bolt on' with the C17.

2. What about servicing costs? Spares costs, availability?

3. DAS costs and standards? The C17 has pretty good DAS, and it will be upgraded further still. It also has OBIGS and cockpit armour too.

4. How quickly can the Russian offerings be re-rolled? Do they always carry all the kit with them like the C17? The C17 is very flexible and can be re-rolled in minutes.

5. How much parking space are they going to use? This we a factor when the USAF switched to C17s. They quite simply got traffic jams at busy airports during operations using the C5 and C141.

6. What components and software are shared between the C17 and C130s and what cost (tools, pallets, PFPS, LAIRCM, Flares etc) and training will this save.

The problem with the military is the support always costs 10 x more than it should and offers about 10% of the effectiveness/efficiency it should. These costs could well have added up far too high for the Russian equipment.

99 Sqn have a team of Boeing reps permanently on the Sqn, not saying they will stay for ever, but the support is there. Will Antonov or Ilyushin offer that level of support?


Do your stats for aircraft loses take into account the flying hours?


I have nothing against the C-17. Its a fine but very expensive machine.

1) You put your finger on my problem. NO ONE has bothered to look at anything else. Alternatives were never even considered, let alone studied. No alternate leasing plans, no alternate new aircraft. Canada has 1960s vintage pre-MIL-STD-1553 bus C-130s. They were gutted, and upgraded to full glass cockpit and two man crew, to NATO standards. So it can be done and it has been done by the CF. The CF went through that trouble because it was deemed at the time cheaper than buying new C-130s which it could not afford. Has anyone looked at what it would cost to purchase and brand new white tail engine-less and avionics-less IL-76 and put it to CF NATO standards? NOPE. At least the UK had looked in 99 at a RR powered AN124 with western avionics and travelled to the Ukraine to consider it before they chose the C-17. New IL-76s sell for 35 million with engines and avionics. No one has said: we looked at it, it is unfeasable/too costly. No-one visited the plant, no one test flew it, no one looked at the specs. Its out of the question, period, regardless of the advantages, savings such a route may or may not have. One DND person said they couldn't consider the IL-76 because it had no countermeasures. All he had ever seen were the civilian versions they chartered and he didn't know the military version did have some.

2) Same as one.

3) The military IL-76 has DAS and OBIGS. The DAS is Russian though. Probably would have to be changed. The OBIGS is located in the right landing gear fairing, the intake is visible in pictures. Not certain about armour.

4) No idea

5) Its a smaller aircraft than the C-17s. Can it back up a slope using reverse thrust? No idea. It has a lighter footprint than the C-17 though.

6) Same as 1 and 2

At the salaries Russian technicians make at home, you think its difficult to obtain an army of them to come over to the west and support an aircraft? VIH Helicopters has several full time Russian technicians supporting the Kamov Helicopters in Canada

Who knows what all this might have cost since no one looked into it. They just decided they were buying C-17s around April 2006 and in August it was a done deal.

The stats do not take into account any flight hours like I mentionned in my previous post. It is possible that East Bloc Aircraft have lesser airframe hours, I just dont know. Maybe someone does.

[Minorite invisible]

MI,

I'm not quite sure what you have against the C17, not saying your 100% wrong or anything, just puzzled by the effort your going too.

In fact, your post made me realize I was giving the wrong idea to people. I had been campaigning against Canada's unilateral purchase of 4 Boeing C-17s because I think, like one of Canada's ex defence Ministers put it, that this purchase is making wasteful use of limited financial resources. When the NATO C-17 pool news surfaced, my initial reaction, which led to this thread, was to revolt against it, as another proof of the Americans forcing their military hardware on people who didn't want or need it.

I don’t want Canada to buy Russian, or continue leasing them. All I wanted was for my government to consider less expensive alternatives.

We look big on the map, but we are a small country, very close to Spain as far as population, GDP and percentage of GDP spent on the Military. We cannot afford operating 4 C-17s on our own, and if we do, it will be at the expense of other things that the military will not get down the line, like new fighters when our CF-18s become obsolete (assuming they are not already there)

Now that I've had time to ponder it, I came to a different conclusion. Canada should cancel its own order and join and augment the NATO C-17 deal. It should add maybe 2000 hours of C-17s to the deal and ask that one be based in Trenton.

That would make me happy, the C-17 lovers would be happy, the American hardware lovers would be happy, and I think most Canadian taxpayers, who at the present time, have no idea about how scandalous this C-17 purchase by Canada is, would also be happy.

We would still be the only nation in the pool that was not a member of the "Coalition of the Willing", but you cant win them all........