NATO annouces its intent to buy Boeing C-17s
The TAPO production line in Uzbekistan hasn't built an Il-76 for years and years.
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.
Guest
Posts: n/a
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. 
The tree huggers etc would have a hissy fit if they appeared over western Europe.
The tree huggers etc would have a hissy fit if they appeared over western Europe.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
Champagne anyone...?
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......
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......
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blog on Canada and the Boeing C-17
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/
This is not about NATO but about Canada but there probably is a lot in common.
http://boeingc17.********.com/
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Magnetogorsk
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Candid Chimera
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.
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.
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
Rebel PPRuNer
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada (formerly EICK)
Age: 51
Posts: 2,834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
minorite
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Pantsville
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rebel PPRuNer
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada (formerly EICK)
Age: 51
Posts: 2,834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
previous, similar thread relating to C-17s and Canadian Forces (as opposed to NATO):
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=231644
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sigh......
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?
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?
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Pantsville
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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"....
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TAPO plant
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
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
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
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://boeingc17.********.com/2006/1...ne-posted.html
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The way it happened in Canada
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/newsroo..._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/pu...=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_sor_e.pdf) Read about it in this Blog at:http://boeingc17.********.com/2006/1...quirement.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...ticleid=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/2006/1...ndustrial.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 ?
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/newsroo..._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/pu...=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_sor_e.pdf) Read about it in this Blog at:http://boeingc17.********.com/2006/1...quirement.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...ticleid=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/2006/1...ndustrial.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 ?
Last edited by Minorite invisible; 5th Dec 2006 at 18:56. Reason: typos
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: In the dark
Posts: 391
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The C17 is the best choice for STRAT AT for a NATO country.
Rebel PPRuNer
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada (formerly EICK)
Age: 51
Posts: 2,834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...t/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.
Last edited by Minorite invisible; 9th Dec 2006 at 13:09.
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Last edited by Minorite invisible; 9th Dec 2006 at 14:21.