NATO annouces its intent to buy Boeing C-17s
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why shouln't we? Even Uncle Sam does, when it serves his interests.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...22/warms22.xml
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...22/warms22.xml
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.
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Last edited by Minorite invisible; 9th Dec 2006 at 23:41. Reason: finger problems
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
"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/uniont...n15afghan.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
Last edited by Minorite invisible; 9th Dec 2006 at 18:34. Reason: Adding URLs
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.
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.
Last edited by brickhistory; 9th Dec 2006 at 20:56.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Last edited by Minorite invisible; 10th Dec 2006 at 12:10.
Champagne anyone...?
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: In the dark
Posts: 391
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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'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?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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'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.
Last edited by Minorite invisible; 11th Dec 2006 at 02:55. Reason: typos
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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........
