• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

"O'Connor has $8B military 'wish list"

Kirkhill, I would certainly look around to see what H's were around...H90/92's would seem to be preferable, I gather from chatting with some of my Herc buddies.  I hadn't heard about the RAF not being big on their "shorties"...maybe something to follow up on there...  ???

Cheers
Duey
 
Duey said:
Kirkhill, I would certainly look around to see what H's were around...H90/92's would seem to be preferable, I gather from chatting with some of my Herc buddies.  I hadn't heard about the RAF not being big on their "shorties"...maybe something to follow up on there...  ???

Cheers
Duey

Didn't Airbus offer refurbished Herc H's for us until if we get the A400M for an interm airplane? They are a known quantity with us, so introduction should be fairly straight foward, and the parts and support are already there.
 
Armymatters, you're just not going to let go of that bone are you. You're not on the A400M payroll, are you?  ;)
 
Journeyman said:
Armymatters, you're just not going to let go of that bone are you. You're not on the A400M payroll, are you?  ;)

No, but I do know someone who works at Airbus. On the other hand, I also know someone who is currently working with the C-27J Spartan bid team for the FWSAR project. I just think it is an interesting proposal that solves the current issue of no brand new aircraft until 2010.
 
Armymatters said:
No, but I do know someone who works at Airbus. On the other hand, I also know someone who is currently working with the C-27J Spartan bid team for the FWSAR project. I just think it is an interesting proposal that solves the current issue of no brand new aircraft until 2010.

And those who actually do the jobs, don't seem to see it your way. 
 
Armymatters said:
No, but I do know someone who works at Airbus. On the other hand, I also know someone who is currently working with the C-27J Spartan bid team for the FWSAR project. I just think it is an interesting proposal that solves the current issue of no brand new aircraft until 2010.

"i know someone"

"i read a book"

"i saw something on TV"


I have never seen you type "i've flown this" or "i have used this"........

::)
 
He does say he is an armchair general.
As mentioned before the devil's in the details and those you don't necessarily get on Janes or from your buddies.
 
Lockheed Martin is in an excellent position to make a counter-offer – after all, it is LM to whom most operators want to trade-in ’H-model Hercs. By simply offering interim, rebuilt ’Hs until brand-new ’Js are available (and hopefully bug-free), LM is even with Airbus again. So, why didn’t LM make such an offer earlier? Readers may remember that Britain offered to  lease 10 ex-RAF ’Js  to Canada early in 2005. That deal lost its appeal when LM offered a lease arrangement on brand-new ’Js – LM’s key interest was keeping ’J production lines open, something not helped by Canada taking on used British ’Js. But DND wants to own and that’s just fine by LM. Who wants to sell ’Hs?

http://www.sfu.ca/casr/bg-airlift-tactical.htm

The RAF J's have the same volume as the H's but can lift more mass farther as I understand it.

I can't find a primary source just now.  This will have to do.
 
Interesting conversation so far gents - let's keep it up and keep the good ideas flowing.

If I may interject a few sentences, I will promise to go back to lurking once complete.

Strat-lift aside, let's look at the root cause as to why the CF's current fleet of CC-130s are experiencing shortages.  It all comes down to parts and techs.  We rob other aircraft to make another fly and we don't have enough blue suit workers to remedy all the snags that are found with 30 + year old aircraft.

Maintenance priority in Canada is maintaining the E model SAR standby in Greenwood and Winnipeg - Trenton has the rest of the E/H mix with which to maintain SAR standby and keep the bullets and beans flowing into Kandahar.  By removing the Greenwood/Winnipeg fleet from the equation, you effectively cut the maintenance requirements by 50% allowing 8 Wing to prioritize the CC-130's dedicated role of intra-theatre tactical airlift.

Here's the rub...

The only way to stem this flow of maintenance is to replace the SAR birds across Canada - a.k.a. FWSAR replacement project.  Sure , it sounds like I have a personal bias, but I never mentioned the Buff being replaced any time soon - the Buffalo has more life left in it than all of the Herc fleet.

By removing primary SAR from the Hercs task-load, we could retire all of the E model Hercs and rely on that pool of parts and man-power to keep the remaining H models running at peak performance - at least until an effective tactical airlift replacement project can be dreamed up.  The two planes that have been permanently parked at Trenton are both E model Hercs, with the rest to soon follow, why prolonge the inevitable?

Armymatters - do some research for me and find out how many E models and H models are in our current fleet?  I want to do some comparative reasoning with whatever facts you dig up when it comes to how many J models we really need....
 
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:HB3NVBEd4D0J:www.cda-cdai.ca/pdf/Crisis_Cdn_Sec_Def.pdf+CC130E+CC130H&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=7
http://www.sfu.ca/casr/id-ng4-2.htm

Zoomie:  These two reports, one from CDAI (Understanding the Crisis in Canadian Security and Defence, March 2005) and one from SFU CASR (April 2004) indicate a total of 32 CC130s comprising 19 Es and 13 Hs. 5 of the Hs are Tankers apparently.

Can either the C27J or the C295/C235 be bought in sufficient numbers in time to take some of the load off the either TAC lift or SAR or both?
 
Zoomie,

If we brought in the FWSAR solution as recommended, wouldn't we need to transfer those techs to the new FWSAR airframes as opposed to consolidating them in Trenton to focus on the remaing C-130's?  Or would we specificy the supplying company train the FWSAR maintenance techs directly from recruits (which would seem to make sense because it would improve our overall depth)?

Thanks in advance,

Matthew.  :salute:
 
More on the CC130 fleet:

http://www.jcaa.us/AA_Conference_2000/Th-13.pdf 
CC130 Hercules Individual Aircraft Management

19x CC130-E
4x  CC130-H73
2x  CC130-H84
5x  CC130-HT(90) Tankers
2x  CC130-H30 (Stretched) date of acquisition and age of airframes are not given.

Perhaps Armymatters can supply some more up to date information.  I thought that some aircraft had already been taken out of service.


 
The  Canadian  military  surely  needs  new  equipment  and  we  should  try  to  get  the  best  that  is  available  for  our  troops. Hopefully  there  will  be  no  problem  in  getting  major  transformations  in  apparel  a.s.a.p.
    The  undertakings  that  our  current  Conservative  government  is  taking  are  to  be  applauded  because  it  shall  enhance  our  capability  to  wage  war ( peacekeeping )  at  the  same  time  offering  more  protection  for  our  troops.
  SUPPORT  OUR  TROOPS!
 
I have the entire Hercules production list for Canada as follows:

Updated August 2005

MSN Last ID Type     Last Operator/Owner       Previous IDs             Notes
3590 10304 CC-130E Canadian Armed Forces 60-5453                 w/o 15.4.66, belly landing,after explosive decompression
4020 130305 CC-130E Canadian Armed Forces 64-17624, CAF10305 Trenton 8wg
4026 130306 CC-130E Canadian Armed Forces 64-17625, CAF10306 Greenwood 413 Sqn
4041 130307 CC-130E Canadian Armed Forces 64-17626, CAF10307 Trenton 8wg
4042 130308 CC-130E Canadian Armed Forces 64-17627, CAF10308 Trenton 8wg
4050 130309 CC-130E Canadian Armed Forces 64-17628               Cr after t/o from Trenton 27.4.67
4051 130310 CC-130E Canadian Armed Forces 64-17629, CAF10310 Greenwood 413 Sqn
4060 130311 CC-130E Canadian Armed Forces 64-17630, CAF10311 Trenton 8wg
4061 130312 CC-130E Canadian Armed Forces 64-17631, CAF10312 w/o 15.10.80, stalled at low level nr Chapais, Quebec
4066 130313 CC-130E Canadian Armed Forces 64-17632, CAF10313 Trenton 8wg
4067 130314 CC-130E Canadian Armed Forces 64-17633, CAF10314 Greenwood 413 Sqn
4070 130315 CC-130E Canadian Armed Forces 64-17634, CAF10315 Trenton 8wg
4075 130316 CC-130E Canadian Armed Forces 64-17635, CAF10316 Trenton 8wg
4095 130319 CC-130E Canadian Armed Forces 64-17638, CAF10319 Trenton 8wg
4096 130320 CC-130E Canadian Armed Forces CAF10320               Trenton 8wg
4122 130317 CC-130E Canadian Armed Forces 64-17636, CAF10317 Trenton 8wg
4124 130318 CC-130E Canadian Armed Forces 65-17637, 10318           w/o 1.89 cr landing Wainwright AAF, AK
4191 130321 CC-130E Canadian Armed Forces 65-12766, CAF10321 w/o 22.7.93 CFB Wainwright
4192 130322 CC-130E Canadian Armed Forces 65-12767, CAF10322 w/o 30.10.91 Ellesmere Island
4193 130323 CC-130E Canadian Armed Forces 65-12768, CAF10323 Trenton 8wg
4194 130324 CC-130E Canadian Armed Forces 65-12769, CAF10324 Trenton 8wg
4285 130325 CC-130E Canadian Armed Forces CAF10325             Trenton 8wg
4286 130326 CC-130E Canadian Armed Forces CAF10326             Trenton 8wg
4288 130327 CC-130E Canadian Armed Forces CAF10327             Trenton 8wg
4289 130328 CC-130E Canadian Armed Forces CAF10328             Trenton 8wg
4553 130329 CC-130H Canadian Armed Forces 73-1589                       Crashed Edmonton 16.11.82
4555 130330 CC-130H Canadian Armed Forces 73-1591                       Collided mid air with 130331 29.3.85 CFB Namao
4559 130331 CC-130H Canadian Armed Forces 73-1593                       Collided mid air with 130330 29.3.85 CFB Namao
4568 130332 CC-130H Canadian Armed Forces 73-1596
4574 130333 CC-130H Canadian Armed Forces 73-1599                       Trenton 8wg
4580 130336 CC-130H Canadian Armed Forces N4246M, G-52-18           Trenton 8wg, ex 1211 Abu Dhabi
4584 130337 CC-130H Canadian Armed Forces N4247M, G-52-17   Trenton 8wg, ex 1212 Abu Dhabi
4994 130334 CC-130H Canadian Armed Forces                             Trenton 8wg
4995 130335 CC-130H Canadian Armed Forces                             Trenton 8wg
5175 130338 CC-130H Canadian Armed Forces                             Edmonton 435 Sqn
5177 130339 CC-130H Canadian Armed Forces
5189 130340 CC-130H Canadian Armed Forces                             Edmonton 435 Sqn
5200 130341 CC-130H Canadian Armed Forces                             Edmonton 435 Sqn
5207 130342 CC-130H Canadian Armed Forces                             Edmonton 435 Sqn
5307 130343 CC-130H-30 Canadian Armed Forces N41030             Trenton 8wg
5320 130344 CC-130H-30 Canadian Armed Forces N4080M             Trenton 8wg
 
Kirkhill said:
Can either the C27J or the C295/C235 be bought in sufficient numbers in time to take some of the load off the either TAC lift or SAR or both?

Kirkhill - the current plan is for the new FWSAR to completely remove the CC-130 from SAR duties.  Through your research and it being backed up by Armymatters excellent spread-sheet, we can see that there are 13 H models still left in service.  The question that must be brought up is - can Canada maintain an effective Tactical Airlift element with a pool of 13 aircraft.  Keep in mind that if FWSAR is brought online first, only two squadrons in Canada would still be flying the Hercules - one of them being the training unit (426 sqn).  With two H models overseas in Mirage at any given time - that would still leave 11 aircraft (minus one or two in periodic) with which to maintain pilot proficiencies, run the OTU, keep CFS Alert replenished and conduct any intra-national bulk movements.  If we throw in a strat lifter (C17 or whatever) we could effectively strike out the last two missions and also relieve the Herc fleet of MRPs to Hawaii for the Aurora and staging missions for the CF-188s to wherever they deploy.  A C-27J can also act intra-nationally as a lifter - one of the FWSAR requirements is for it to be able to carry a fully assembled propeller, for MRPs and the like.

[quote author=CdnBlackshirt]
If we brought in the FWSAR solution as recommended, wouldn't we need to transfer those techs to the new FWSAR airframes as opposed to consolidating them in Trenton to focus on the remaining C-130's? [/quote]

When it comes to techs - it is the periodical maintenance that occurs only in Trenton which is the most time-consuming.  All CC-130 airframes are rotated back to 8 Wing in order for these time intensive maintenance sessions to take place.  By removing all of the E models from service, we would be left with only 13 airframes to maintain in Trenton with a huge pool of spare parts.

So you tell me - would it make more sense to buy 15 J Models right now or 15 FWSAR?
 
someone has probably already mentioned this but im going to go ahead and mention it aswell, Why the C-17 why not the Antonov 124's that we are already chartering from the russians they offered to sell us some and it it larger and costs less. Here is something i read on the internet

One  citizen's  response  to  the  'intended'  purchase  of  four  Boeing C-17s

Honourable  Senators,  Members  of  Parliament:

According to news reports, DND is about to purchase four (4) Boeing C-17s for 300 million each, plus sign a 20 year maintenance contact for 2 billion dollars.

I will try to be short and simple in my arguments.

Four aircraft at $ 300 million = $ 1.2 billion  –  add to that $ 2.0 billion in contracts,
and it adds up to a total of $ 3.2 billion.

Aircraft cannot fly eternally. Each has what is called a 'service life', which is the number of hours after which the airframe must be retired. The Boeing C-17s have a service life of 30,000 hours.

Since we are spending 3.2 billion dollars on 4 aircraft that each have a service life of 30,000 hours, we can divide 3.2 billion dollars by 4 aircraft, which gives us the cost per Boeing C-17 over its life, than further divide by 30,000 hours which gives us what one hour of flight will cost Canadian taxpayers.

The hourly cost will be $ 26,666.

We have not yet put any pilots or loadmasters on board, paid the mechanics, put any fuel in the aircraft, or added other costs that are not included in the maintenance and parts contracts.

If we just add fuel, these aircraft burn about 6 tons an hour, which comes out to close to $ 3000 an hour of flight. Its easy to see that these aircraft will cost the Canadian taxpayer over $30,000 per hour to fly.

The Antonov 124s we had been chartering cost about $13,000 per hour, which includes just about everything, but they carry 120 tons of cargo.  The Boeing
C-17 will only take 77 tons, about half the payload.

[Author’s Update: Increasing fuel costs (up from US$3,700/hr in 2002 to US$8600/ hr in 2005) will raise An-124 charter costs you around $20,000 per hour rather than the older figure of  $13,000/hr.  The NATO SALIS aircraft will probably cost more due to NATO requirements –  dedicated base, standby, guarantees required, etc.]

So the hourly cost of flying our shiny C-17s will be about 2.5 times the cost of chartering Antonovs, but since the Boeing carries 1.55 times less cargo, the cost per ton carried will be about 3.9 times greater with the Boeings. That covers the cost issue.

This cost issue is the very reason that no other armed forces in any country outside the US has purchased any Boeing C-17s. In fact, the plant is about to be closed.  This is also why,  when Boeing attempted to market the aircraft as a civilian freighter, there was not a single order worldwide, not even in the US.

We  are  about  to  become  the  first  suckers,  thanks  to  Mr. Harper  and  his desperation  at  pleasing  the  White  House.  Even  the UK  (Mr. Blair)  did  not want to buy any C-17s.  (The UK  leased a few, waiting  for the  Airbus A400M).

[CASR  update:  In the end, both the UK  and  Australia decided  to buy  C-17s, each  driven  by  their  own  particular  political  and  military  imperatives  –  so, Canada  might  not be the  'first  adopter'  –  but we may very  well  be  the  last.]

The  Boeing  C-17s are going  to be  purchased  by DND  through  'sole-sourcing',
which  means  that  no alternative  bids  are  going  to  be  accepted.  Here's  what Canadian  law  has  to  say  about  sole - source  buying.


When i read this i asked myself why are we buying these aircraft?
 
Pendant said:
someone has probably already mentioned this but im going to go ahead and mention it aswell, Why the C-17 why not the Antonov 124's that we are already chartering from the russians they offered to sell us some and it it larger and costs less. Here is something i read on the internet

When i read this i asked myself why are we buying these aircraft?

Shall I be the first to make you chuckle canuck101    ;D

Pendant    ::)

Someone has alread mentioned all of this.
We too read on the internet.
When you go and read more of this post, you may have the answers for what you are asking.........answers to these questions that were answered several pages ago. 

Welcome to Army.ca

Enjoy the reading.

;D
 
The Antonov AN-124 has a service life of 24,000 hours, if the airframe was built after 2000. Anything built before 2000 has a service life of 7,000 hours. That is partially why an Antonov can be cheaper.

Edit: Also, the Antonov drinks fuel at about 0.0125 tons per nautical mile, from my calculations from 90,000kg, traveling 4000nm. Using block hours, the Antonov drinks 5 tons per block hour (not flight hours!). Over the service life of a late production Antonov, 120,000 tons of gas will be drunk. Using the same formula for fuel costs above, $60,000,000 of cash will be expended for fuel, and divided for every service hour, $2500 per flight hour. Remember I am using block hours, meaning that I am including calculating time on the ground when the airplane is on a mission.
http://www.skylineaviation.co.uk/data/an124.html

An Antonov requires a minimum of a crew of 6, compared to a C-17, which requires a crew of 3. Crew costs for a C-17 is cheaper than an Antonov AN-124.
 
Back
Top