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

[HItorMiss]

I agree with Kev, Keep a Sqn of 146's for SOF small det insertions work, heck the US Navy still uses a few single engine Huey's for that stuff ( I believe but I could be proven wrong) But like Old sweat says the Griffon just doesn't fit the Observation role very well.

 

[Journeyman]

Every time Ujjal Dosanjh opens his mouth, he sounds more and more like a complete idiot when it comes to defence issues.

He wants a competition between the Boeing C-17 and the Airbus A400M??

Airbus doesn't even envisage a FIRST test flight until 2008.
The initial operating clearance isn't forecast until the 4th-quarter of 2009.1 Anyone figure that date is liable to slip with a new aircraft design?
Only then (2010+) can they even commence production.

How can anyone think its in the CF's "best interest" to a) wait another 1/2 decade, only to receive b) unproven technology, with all the inherent bugs to work out?

I see Defence Procurement SOPs haven't changed within the Liberal Party.  :

--------------------------
1. Airbus Military, "A400M Countdown"  http://www.airbusmilitary.com/countdown/index.html

 

[HItorMiss]

Am I a bit confused I believed that the A400M was being considered as competeion for the C130J

http://www.airbusmilitary.com/specifications.html

then again maybe my head isn't seeing things clear can some one clarify?

 

[Good2Golf]

No, HoM.  A400m vs. C-17 for strat lift.  C130J's would replace the aging CC-130Es and some of our H's.

Cheers,
Duey

 

[Journeyman]

Am I a bit confused I believed that the A400M was being considered as competeion for the C130J

Well, the gospel according to the National Post....

At the top of Mr. O'Connor's list will be four new C-17 Globemaster cargo jets, which the sources said would be bought directly from the U.S. manufacturer, Boeing, in a "sole source" acquisition.

The government will also be asked to approve the purchase of 17 tactical transports -- smaller, propeller-driven aircraft that can land troops or cargo in remote, rough airstrips. The likely winner of that contract will be the C-130J, the latest model of the venerable Hercules now in service with the Canadian air force.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=b57feeea-de73-40be-976f-7076f9331301&k=88600

As Duey said, C-17 and C-130J contracts are separate issues. For the strategic lift requirement, the MND is apparently going single-source for an already existing/successful aircraft (C-17), while the Liberal Defence Critic thinks the competition against a currently non-existent aircraft (A400M) would be in our best interests.

---------
Now if this topic were merged with the thread on fitness and targeted fat removal, the Liberal Defence Critic would be a PRIME candidate for cranial liposuction!

 

[Kirkhill]

The problem is that the A-400, in addition to not flying yet, isn't directly comparable to either the C-17 or the C-130J.  All of them can(will) travel similar distances with the right loads and all of them can(will) land on short, rough runways.  But the C130 is rated at roughly 20 tonnes of lift, the A400 at 40 tonnes and the C17 at 60 to 70 tonnes.  The A400 aims to be "Jack-of-all-trades", much the way the CH146 Griffon was touted.  It runs the risk of being Master of None.

 

[HItorMiss]

Seen, thank you all for clarifying

 

[Armymatters]

The problem is that the A-400, in addition to not flying yet, isn't directly comparable to either the C-17 or the C-130J.  All of them can(will) travel similar distances with the right loads and all of them can(will) land on short, rough runways.  But the C130 is rated at roughly 20 tonnes of lift, the A400 at 40 tonnes and the C17 at 60 to 70 tonnes.  The A400 aims to be "Jack-of-all-trades", much the way the CH146 Griffon was touted.  It runs the risk of being Master of None.

C-130 is also an ageing design. I don't think Lockheed will further develop C-130 beyond the current J model. A400M has more future potential as it is a new clean sheet design. I think we should do a UK: purchase C-17's for true strategic lift and purchase A400M as a more capable C-130 replacement.

 

[Kirkhill]

C-130 is also an ageing design. I don't think Lockheed will further develop C-130 beyond the current J model. A400M has more future potential as it is a new clean sheet design. I think we should do a UK: purchase C-17's for true strategic lift and purchase A400M as a more capable C-130 replacement.

Agreed.  But heavy emphasis on FUTURE.

 

[big bad john]

C-130 is also an ageing design. I don't think Lockheed will further develop C-130 beyond the current J model. A400M has more future potential as it is a new clean sheet design. I think we should do a UK: purchase C-17's for true strategic lift and purchase A400M as a more capable C-130 replacement.

What about the K model? C130K?

 

[aesop081]

What about the K model? C130K?

C-130K is not as advanced as the J model ( unlike what the "K" suggests.)  It came before the J model and is UK designation only i beleive

 

[Armymatters]

C-130K is not as advanced as the J model ( unlike what the "K" suggests.)  It came before the J model and is UK designation only i beleive

The C-130K is acutally a modified C-130H for the UK, as aesop mentions.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/c-130k.htm

 

[big bad john]

I stand humbly corrected!

 

[MarkOttawa]

Three points:

1) The A400M has a new and unproven engine.
http://www.aviationweek.com/shownews/03paris/pre02.htm

2) Earlier Airbus was pitching the plane as a Herc replacement.
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/business/story.html?id=fac06506-7312-4dcd-8fd1-17415851a96a

3) Now as a strat lifter.
http://server09.densan.ca/archivenews/060525/cit/060525a8.htm

So we can have one plane as both strat and tac lifter if we wait until 2012 at, likely, the earliest.  Does that make sense, other than for the Quebec aerospace industry (and its votes)?  Please check out URLs for 2) and 3) above.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Armymatters]

Regarding the engine:
Airbus has started static testing on the engines. The Europrop engine was run for the first time integrated with its Avio gearbox and Ratier-Figeac eight-bladed propeller in Feb this year. Further testing will commence on a modified C-130 being prepared by Marshall Aerospace of the UK in 2007, meaning that the engine will recieve certification in 2007. Airbus is apparantly running on a very agressive schedule to get A400M certified by 2008, as first metal (and first composite baked) was in Feb of this year.

http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2006/03/07/205249/Spain+aerospace+special+Heavy+duty.html

I am more inclined to give Airbus the contract for the C-130 replacement, than the strategic lifter contract. C-17's can take some of the pressure off the C-130 fleet, while we wait for the A400M to arrive.

 

[_TheSaint_]

Since these planes are just for lifting people/equipment/supplies or whatever, what could possibly be so much more improved with the A400m than with a Hercules or some other current cargo plane. If they all carry similar weights of stuff, can all land on the short runways and can all can fly the same distances- why wait? Just buy whatever the current 'state of the art' is and be done with it. I don't think it's going to make that much of a difference if the only use is flying stuff from point A to point B. More important I would imagine is what rolls OUT of the cargo bay. From what I've read the CAF currently have to use other armed forces for rides in Afghan and such. That just seems lame.

What if we declare war on Spain over turrbot fish or something, then no one wants to fly our troops there? Too bad so sad?

 

[Kirkhill]

If they all carry similar weights of stuff,

They don't

C-17 72 tonnes max
A-400 40 tonnes maybe
C-130 20 tonnes on a short hop

 

[_TheSaint_]

They don't

C-17 72 tonnes max
A-400 40 tonnes maybe
C-130 20 tonnes on a short hop

So the C-17 already carries more weight than the A400m? So why not buy a few of them for the long distance flights, and a few smaller C-130J's for any little hops? Seems like a no brainer to me.

I'll await the Puns.

 

[Journeyman]

Airbus is apparantly running on a very agressive schedule to get A400M certified by 2008

Please go to the Airbus website, sited above. Even discounting their predilection towards high hopes and best-case scenarios, they do not forecast certification until the end of 2009. I would bet cash that that date slips.

 

[Armymatters]

Please go to the Airbus website, sited above. Even discounting their predilection towards high hopes and best-case scenarios, they do not forecast certification until the end of 2009. I would bet cash that that date slips.

I should have meant flying by then (Airbus has a schedule to fly the A400M in January 2008).

So the C-17 already carries more weight than the A400m? So why not buy a few of them for the long distance flights, and a few smaller C-130J's for any little hops? Seems like a no brainer to me.

I'll await the Puns.

C-130J can't carry a LAV III, the premier CF land vehicle in any state of combat readyness (we have to pull the turret, remove all ammo and bolt on armour to get it to fit in a C-130 and within the weight limits of the aircraft, and even then the C-130 ain't going anywhere far). MGS will be far worst: It won't fit at all. A400M will easily take a LAV III or MGS in combat readyness (drive it off the airplane and straight into combat), without taxing a limited fleet of a future CF C-17 fleet.