Will the C17s Make it to the Ramp?
- Thread starter C1Dirty
- Start date
- Status
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
I seem to recall the C17 production line being in jeopardy, is this still the case?
- Reaction score
- 18,532
- Points
- 1,360
IN HOC SIGNO said:
P means production and # is the sequence number on the manufacturing line. I would think that there's some discussion about the final jockying of CAN, AUS and USAF tailnumbers, hence the longer-term tailnumbers likely aren't finalized.
G2G
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 230
Ex-Dragoon said:
I remember reading that the C17 was finishing production altogether in a short time because of the costs accompanied with it. If I am remembering correctly, this is one of the reasons that the DND/Government was trying to fast track the ones coming into the CF because after those had been delivered, the Globemaster was going to shut down production (possibly after another delivery to another military, but I'm not sure which one)
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
midget-boyd91 said:
This was discussed before. The production line is in Long Beach Ca.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2006/08/c17-production-line-out-of-time/index.php
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 10
Let's just hope and pray that there won't be an election before the aircraft arrive lest we get a Chretien style chop job!- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
Yes "P" is the production number.
Yup - correct. Our first aircraft was supposed to be delivered in Mar/Apr 2007, but after negotiations last summer we slipped them back to June 2007. There is a delay for the LAIRCM fitting from Northrup Grumman. Our first tail was for P-174 in June 2007. Of course we lost that when negotiations fell through in Dec 06 and then just recently throughout Jan 07. Someone else will get that aircraft.
The earliest tail that we can now expect ... in between the RAAF and the USAF deliveries ... is now P-177 in August. We will then step back onto our original delivery schedule with P-180 in October 07 as the second aircraft.
Strangely enough we had originally been allowed to cut in-front of the USAF for P-174 ... they have been very gracious and accommodating towards us.
geo said:
Yup - correct. Our first aircraft was supposed to be delivered in Mar/Apr 2007, but after negotiations last summer we slipped them back to June 2007. There is a delay for the LAIRCM fitting from Northrup Grumman. Our first tail was for P-174 in June 2007. Of course we lost that when negotiations fell through in Dec 06 and then just recently throughout Jan 07. Someone else will get that aircraft.
The earliest tail that we can now expect ... in between the RAAF and the USAF deliveries ... is now P-177 in August. We will then step back onto our original delivery schedule with P-180 in October 07 as the second aircraft.
Strangely enough we had originally been allowed to cut in-front of the USAF for P-174 ... they have been very gracious and accommodating towards us.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
GO... don't think there is much of a demand for jumpers on Stratigic lifts... which is what these babies will be tasked to do - freeing up the Hercs for Tactical lifts (incl Para drops - if the need arises)
Hmmm.... wonder if anyone will ever try to do a low level extraction using a C17?
Imagine: Plane flies low, as if to land, ramp down, out comes shutes & out comes a Leo1.... strapped down tight on a pallet ..... wonder if it's gonna do cartwheels
Hmmm.... wonder if anyone will ever try to do a low level extraction using a C17?
Imagine: Plane flies low, as if to land, ramp down, out comes shutes & out comes a Leo1.... strapped down tight on a pallet
..... wonder if it's gonna do cartwheels - Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
GO!!! said:
In short ........ YES.
It will take us a while, both for the aircrew and also for the infrastructure, to adjust to the airdrop role. Right now the Division is not looking at beginning airdrop until late in 2008 or early 2009 [at the very ealriest] and that is only if things are going well with bedding down the aircraft, getting them settled in and coming to grips with the operation. Airdrop, right now, is not the C-17 priority (in its list of many priorities). If it has to airdrop will slide to the right as required until other objectives are consolidated first.
The aircraft is a very good airdropper. That being said it flies a slightly different profile than does the venerable C-130. It can do personnel static line out of the troops doors - 50 per side in a single pass (no ramp drops). CFLAWC will have to look at changing their training as well, since they will most likely need a C-17 mock-up as well as their current C-130 mockup for inflight drills (although they would be identical drills). The static lines will have to be changed - the C-17 requires a 20' instead of a 16' static line - the USA has changed theirs to a blue static line while retaining their unmodified chutes on the yellow static line for those who will be jumping from the C-130.
CDS drops remain the same, but we will face an infrastructure change when it comes to HE. The USAF (both C-130 and C-17) use the EFTC (Extraction Force Transfer Coupling) pallet for their HE ... not that archaic, 1960s, old school, spider web version of the rigging we currently do in the back of our CC-130s. Big change required for that one.
High altitude airdrops are also performed using the aircraft. I've dropped US SOF from 25,000' over Afghan so that they could go "do their thing" and we also did the high altitude HUMRO airdrops over Afghanistan in late 2001 and early 2002 from 25,000.
LAPES - the aircraft can do LAPES and is capable of it, but nobody does it anymore. Not the C-17 nor the C-130s, USAF or CF. Nobody. It has proven too expensive and too dangerous, so sorry, you won't get to see your cartwheeling LAPES'ed Leopard ... although that would hold some entertainment value! ;D
We won't be doing LAPES.
While people keep thinking of this aircraft as "strategic", the label is really a misnomer and is indicative of the fact that it will bring a whole new paradigm and capability to the CF - something we have never had before. Sure it will fly "strategic" missions that go transatlantic or transpacific to get men and equipment (and women, sorry about that) to where they need to go. That being said, it can also be flown tactically.
At very significant weights it can also be slowed down to approach and land at the same speeds as the C-130 onto forward operating locations and austere airfields. There have been many times where I have landed at 460,000 lbs AUW onto 3,500' (only 90' wide) marked only with 5 IR chem sticks strapped to sandbags to mark out the LZ. It can be totally blacked out for night NVG operations, it has a robust defensive system (MWS, LWS, CMDS and LAIRCM), it has fuel tank fire suppression systems, it has armour plating for the crew and it has multiple redundant systems so that is can survive direct hits from SA, AAA and also IR SAMs.
December 2003 saw the #2 engine of a C-17 hit by a MANPAD SAM out of Bahgdad. The #2 began to come apart, as turbine blades shed and damaged the #1 and also the fuselage and wing, leading edge slat etc ... but the aircraft was able to return to land at a fairly heavy weight on 2.5 engines. They replaced the engine, fixed the #1 engine and flew it out a few days later.
I've operated the aircraft from 2001 - 2004 on dirt strips (FOB Rhino) and also shattered slab concrete runways (Kandanhar, Bagram, Masar-i-Sharif) in Afghanistan, and all of the northern FOBs in Iraq. I also flew in the Bashur airdrop of the 173rd in OIF (#9 in a formation of 15). 1000 men dropped from 10 aircraft in formation, blacked out on NVGs and 5 aircraft in the lead dropping HE in formation. 1000 men in a single pass over the DZ - 100 per aircraft, 50 per side double door over a 60 sec "lime on" DZ marked only with an IR chem stick and a small radar beacon. It is a very capable "tactical" aircraft.
The aircraft also flies well at about 300' AGL flying at about 300-340 Kts ground speed ... once again it is best if blacked out on NVGs. The HUD and the flight path vector make low level flight very easy in this machine.
The plan is to use the aircraft in the same way .... strategic legs to get the equipment to where we need it followed by a tactical insertion and departure.
For those who do not think that this aircraft has a tactical capability ......... well, I suggest you ask someone who has flown it and operated it. I don't know "thing 1" about the LAV lll or the LEO 1, but I know about this aircraft and about tactical trash hauling.
This thing is not another Airbus.
Retired AF Guy
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 666
- Points
- 1,160
Globesmasher
Interesting writeup. However, in your article you use a couple of abbreviations and phrases that I'm not familiar with, e.g. "CDS drop," "HE," and "HUMRO airdrops." You also mention "LIRCM;" IRCM I'm guessing means Infrared Countermeasures, but what does the "L" stand for? Laser? ???
You have to pardon my ignorance as my background is in the fighter world.
Sorry, a quick edit as I got your handle wrong. My apologies.
Interesting writeup. However, in your article you use a couple of abbreviations and phrases that I'm not familiar with, e.g. "CDS drop," "HE," and "HUMRO airdrops." You also mention "LIRCM;" IRCM I'm guessing means Infrared Countermeasures, but what does the "L" stand for? Laser? ???
You have to pardon my ignorance as my background is in the fighter world.
Sorry, a quick edit as I got your handle wrong. My apologies.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 10
Globe Wow! That's quite a resume!I bet it really must burn your A@#$ to read the ignorant and uninformed "journalism," and subsequent comments written by know-nothing bleeding hearts regarding the C-17. (Did I say Dawn Black or only think it?) I read one post in the Globe where some airhead claimed that most countries didn't have the infrastructure to accomodate such a large A/C, something like the A380. There is so much misinformation, I wish that journalists really did their job properly and covered the stories comprehensively and accurately, giving the public, dare I say it...the truth!
Ciao.
Kingfisher
- Reaction score
- 1,520
- Points
- 1,140
Globemasher: Do you know when the infrastructure (ie: hangars) will be up and running in Trenton? In the mean time, where will the C-17s be parked?
Max
Max
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 530
Did everyone see Dennis Coderre has already confirmed if they become the next government, they will cancel the program.
He apparently said so in an interview yesterday....
Good Lord I hate the Liberal Party.
Matthew. :threat:
He apparently said so in an interview yesterday....
Good Lord I hate the Liberal Party.
Matthew. :threat:
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
SupersonicMax said:
Well my lane is more foxholes than flightlines, but I recall someone with a wedge cap saying that hangars are for maint and aprons are for parking...
Globesmasher, excellent write up, that should be published in every newpaper in Canada.
- Reaction score
- 63
- Points
- 530
Saw this article today.The C-17 will be a great asset for Canada and will provide badly needed strategic airlift.As Globemaster can attest there are already a number of CAF pilots that are qualified to fly the C-17 which will be another advantage as well.As part of the exchange program have ground crew personnel been trained to maintain the C-17 ?
http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=1da3b434-7325-4c80-a5f4-e0b44118c00d
Deal to buy U.S. planes clinched
Controversial $3.4B purchase announced today
Mike Blanchfield And Jack Aubry
CanWest News Service
Friday, February 02, 2007
OTTAWA - After months of criticism that it was spending too much money without proper competition, and intense lobbying for a share of the spoils, the Conservative government will announce today a $3.4-billion contract to buy four massive military transport planes from the U.S. firm Boeing Co.
While such a large outlay would normally have resulted in a competitive bidding process among large aerospace consortiums, the Department of Public Works and the Defence Department decided that only one plane -- Boeing's C-17 Globemaster --could meet its requirements.
The government last summer issued a rarely used Advance Contract Award Notice stating its intention to buy directly from Boeing, a move that infuriated competitors, especially Europe's Airbus Military consortium, which has complained that its A400 transport was unfairly excluded.
The controversial purchase is being made without military officials asking for a test flight.
"No test flight was requested to demonstrate the ACAN high level performance requirement," said Public Works documents filed in Parliament yesterday. However, the same documents say the military has "asked the United States army for the opportunity to conduct a test flight of the CH-47 Chinook helicopter to support Canada's airworthiness requirements as part of the contracting process."
Canada is also considering the purchase of the helicopter.
The purchase also ignited a fierce battle in Cabinet over which regions -- particularly Quebec, Atlantic Canada and Manitoba -- would benefit from lucrative industrial spinoffs, as well as concerns that Canadian jobs will migrate south of the border because some dual nationality Canadians will be barred access to sensitive U.S. military specifications.
Senator Michael Fortier, Minister of Public Works, continued to come under fire over suggestions he was lobbying for Quebec to get at least 40% of the spinoffs, known as industrial regional benefits, to more fairly represent the province's 55% stake in Canada's aerospace industry. Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe has been demanding 60%.
Reports indicate Quebec will wind up with about 25%-30% of the benefits, well off demands.
Mr. Fortier was appointed to Cabinet by Prime Minister Stephen Harper to shore up representation in Montreal and has promised to resign and run for an elected seat in the House of Commons in the next election. As a result, Mr. Fortier has not had to endure the daily barrage of the Commons Question Period that Bloc Quebecois and Liberal MPs have directed at his Cabinet colleague Industry Minister Maxime Bernier.
That changed yesterday when Mr. Fortier faced questions in the Senate about the contract and defended the process used to choose Boeing.
"We said this summer when we announced the contracts to equip our Armed Forces that we were insisting that for every dollar that is given to a non-Canadian vendor, we would insist that this vendor reinvest that dollar in Canada," said Mr. Fortier in response to Senate Liberal leader Celine Hervieux-Payette.
Under the terms of most military contracts, the government requires foreign companies to spend $1 in Canada for every dollar it receives from the federal treasury.
Mr. Fortier also made a point of clarifying his participation in the bidding process.
"As Minister of Public Works, I refused to meet the equipment suppliers and the lobbyists. It is my job and I would never accept -- and maybe that's what the Liberals did. We won't do it. A system is in place, and clients all over the Hill indicate their needs to us. Those needs are brought to public works and government services which is responsible for procurement."
He also said the regional distribution of the work falls to Mr. Bernier, and that the government was going to insist that Canada's aerospace industry continue to flourish under the contract.
Mr. Fortier also assured the Senate that restrictions under the U.S. International Traffic in Arms Regulations that exclude dual-nationality Canadians from countries such as Cuba, Libya, Iran and nearly two dozen others from seeing sensitive U.S. military specifications would not play a role in the contract.
In the Commons, Mr. Harper said the government's efforts to rebuild the military would benefit all of the regions.
© National Post 2007
http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=1da3b434-7325-4c80-a5f4-e0b44118c00d
Deal to buy U.S. planes clinched
Controversial $3.4B purchase announced today
Mike Blanchfield And Jack Aubry
CanWest News Service
Friday, February 02, 2007
OTTAWA - After months of criticism that it was spending too much money without proper competition, and intense lobbying for a share of the spoils, the Conservative government will announce today a $3.4-billion contract to buy four massive military transport planes from the U.S. firm Boeing Co.
While such a large outlay would normally have resulted in a competitive bidding process among large aerospace consortiums, the Department of Public Works and the Defence Department decided that only one plane -- Boeing's C-17 Globemaster --could meet its requirements.
The government last summer issued a rarely used Advance Contract Award Notice stating its intention to buy directly from Boeing, a move that infuriated competitors, especially Europe's Airbus Military consortium, which has complained that its A400 transport was unfairly excluded.
The controversial purchase is being made without military officials asking for a test flight.
"No test flight was requested to demonstrate the ACAN high level performance requirement," said Public Works documents filed in Parliament yesterday. However, the same documents say the military has "asked the United States army for the opportunity to conduct a test flight of the CH-47 Chinook helicopter to support Canada's airworthiness requirements as part of the contracting process."
Canada is also considering the purchase of the helicopter.
The purchase also ignited a fierce battle in Cabinet over which regions -- particularly Quebec, Atlantic Canada and Manitoba -- would benefit from lucrative industrial spinoffs, as well as concerns that Canadian jobs will migrate south of the border because some dual nationality Canadians will be barred access to sensitive U.S. military specifications.
Senator Michael Fortier, Minister of Public Works, continued to come under fire over suggestions he was lobbying for Quebec to get at least 40% of the spinoffs, known as industrial regional benefits, to more fairly represent the province's 55% stake in Canada's aerospace industry. Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe has been demanding 60%.
Reports indicate Quebec will wind up with about 25%-30% of the benefits, well off demands.
Mr. Fortier was appointed to Cabinet by Prime Minister Stephen Harper to shore up representation in Montreal and has promised to resign and run for an elected seat in the House of Commons in the next election. As a result, Mr. Fortier has not had to endure the daily barrage of the Commons Question Period that Bloc Quebecois and Liberal MPs have directed at his Cabinet colleague Industry Minister Maxime Bernier.
That changed yesterday when Mr. Fortier faced questions in the Senate about the contract and defended the process used to choose Boeing.
"We said this summer when we announced the contracts to equip our Armed Forces that we were insisting that for every dollar that is given to a non-Canadian vendor, we would insist that this vendor reinvest that dollar in Canada," said Mr. Fortier in response to Senate Liberal leader Celine Hervieux-Payette.
Under the terms of most military contracts, the government requires foreign companies to spend $1 in Canada for every dollar it receives from the federal treasury.
Mr. Fortier also made a point of clarifying his participation in the bidding process.
"As Minister of Public Works, I refused to meet the equipment suppliers and the lobbyists. It is my job and I would never accept -- and maybe that's what the Liberals did. We won't do it. A system is in place, and clients all over the Hill indicate their needs to us. Those needs are brought to public works and government services which is responsible for procurement."
He also said the regional distribution of the work falls to Mr. Bernier, and that the government was going to insist that Canada's aerospace industry continue to flourish under the contract.
Mr. Fortier also assured the Senate that restrictions under the U.S. International Traffic in Arms Regulations that exclude dual-nationality Canadians from countries such as Cuba, Libya, Iran and nearly two dozen others from seeing sensitive U.S. military specifications would not play a role in the contract.
In the Commons, Mr. Harper said the government's efforts to rebuild the military would benefit all of the regions.
© National Post 2007
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
I'm guessing these aircraft will be getting their own squadron, and if the Air Force sticks with tradition, I suspect they'll be pulling an old set of squadron colours out from under glass and standing an old unit back up.
Any idea which one?
Btw, the press conference with the official announcement is at 1400 EST.
Any idea which one?
Btw, the press conference with the official announcement is at 1400 EST.
- Reaction score
- 1,520
- Points
- 1,140
COBRA-6 said:
Well, you need to protect them from nature... We park our airplanes in the Hangar every night (anyways, in every unit I've been so far). So, you would need hangar space for them all!
Max
- Status
Similar threads
