If you want on or off my aerospace ping list, please contact me by Freep mail.
Posted on 06/01/2006 9:53:00 PM PDT by Paleo Conservative
OTTAWA - Canada will have to start negotiations for long-range military transport aircraft by the end of next month if it is going to be able to purchase the American-built C-17 favoured by the Conservative government and the air force, the plane's manufacturer says.
The time needed to build the C-17, combined with the fact that the production line is winding down after delivering the bulk of its orders to the U.S. military, means Canada would need to start the procurement process by the end of June, according to Boeing officials.
But other aerospace representatives dismiss that timeline as a marketing ploy by Boeing to put pressure on the Harper government to act on a C-17 purchase.
Boeing senior manager Len Tavernetti said the aircraft's production line is scheduled to shut down in 2008, and some of the plane's parts suppliers would need to know fairly soon if another order is coming.
Canada "would have to move very quickly,'' said Tavernetti. "You need government to government talks at an official level.''
He said Wednesday he was not aware of any such talks between Canada and the U.S. at this point. Discussions would be needed since the Canadian order would have to be accommodated in the production line geared up for the U.S. military. Training Canadians to maintain and fly the aircraft would also be provided by the U.S. air force, requiring negotiations between governments for that.
Tavernetti said it appears the Canadian government is sorting out its defence priorities and cabinet is expected to soon examine those, but Boeing officials are still optimistic the Harper government will place an order for the giant aircraft. A program to purchase four to six C-17s is estimated to cost around $2 billion.
Martin Sefzig, director of Canadian programs for the European aerospace firm EADS, questioned Boeing's claims, and said the firm has issued similar warnings to other nations considering the C-17.
"They've used that as a marketing tool elsewhere,'' Sefzig said. "The message is if you don't buy the C-17 now you'll never get them, which is not the case at all.''
Sefzig's firm is building the A400M transport plane, an aircraft he says can do the job of both the C-17 and shorter-range transport aircraft.
Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor has cited military airlift as a government priority, but has not identified any specific plane or made any decision. However, the market for long-range aircraft is limited to either the C-17 or even larger and more expensive U.S. aircraft, or planes manufactured in the former Soviet Union.
Sefzig said he considers the Canadian government's purchase of the C-17 as a "fait accompli,'' and expects an announcement in the coming months. EADS is now focusing on marketing its A400M for the program to replace the Canadian Forces fleet of aging Hercules aircraft.
"We are hoping this will be a fair and open competition,'' he said. "We are taking Mr. O'Connor at his word that this will be the case.''
The U.S. aerospace firm, Lockheed Martin, is also promoting its C-130J aircraft as a replacement for the Canadian Hercules.
Lockheed Martin official Dick Singer said he does not believe Boeing's claims either.
"The worst decisions are made under pressure,'' he said. "The house is not burning just yet.''
Singer said it is more critical to purchase replacements for the Hercules, since those planes are more than 30 years old and are important to the Afghan mission.
Ottawa Citizen
If you want on or off my aerospace ping list, please contact me by Freep mail.
Hahaha...great pic. Hell of a reverse thrust. :)
"Martin Sefzig, director of Canadian programs for the European aerospace firm EADS, questioned Boeing's claims, and said the firm has issued similar warnings to other nations considering the C-17."
Which is very much the case.
The USAF ordered some more C-17s some time ago after they realized the demand was there for them. A C-17 is in a niche market. The cost associated with ramping back up and building a small number of planes after the fact would significantly increase the per unit cost and it might not be "feasible" all together at that point. Of course, EADS would then try to push their alternative the A400. Therefore, Canada missing this opportunity is something EADS would hope for.
The C-17 is a spectacular plane having both strategic and tactical airlift capabilities. Capable of carrying an M1 or conducting a mass airborne drop, near global reach (I think over 16 hours fuel), short take off and landings, able to land on unimproved airfields and and and, lots of commonality/off the shelf in components, this plane was on schedule and is today “under” cost because of the greater than anticipated production. If Canada waits, the C-17 will eventually slip out from under them. EADS would then have the likely chance to sell an A400 if it is operational. EADS comments were predictable and are inline with their business objectives. They must contradict this statement as this fact directly puts pressure on Canada to act now if they want a C-17.
A C130 is a tactical lift asset, which is great inter-theater.
If Canada wants to lift a Leo (tank) to Timbuktu tomorrow, they will not do that with a A310. An A310 will not land on an unimproved surface in Afghanistan as the C17 TODAY is. He will not land in a NBC environment, he will not do short field landings using arrestor hooks, he does not have a comprehensive countermeasure suite........
An A310 is a stop gap measure even as the Germans and others use them. It is a mediocre interim solution until the A400 comes, where a civilian aircraft which lacks the ramp, has the wrong landing gear, can’t do airborne drops and and and is somewhat adapted to be a military transport. It can “kinda” does the job, but not really. Could a A310 open a rear ramp and drop pallets while in flight? Does it have the range of a C17? Is it designed to where the standard palletized loading system fits in perfectly stacked two high? An A310 is like a Chevrolet Cavalier on which you paint an Air Force decal and then call a “Jeep”. It can carry some guys to and from places, but it’s not really tailored to meet the Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force requirements.
Do you know how some of those tanks in Northern Iraq got there during the war? They were flown in from Germany via? C-17.
Their need for this is almost nonexistent, their light vehicles can all be transported by C-130 easily.
You don't have to agree with them - but that is what they want, a ton of C-130's and more A310's.
From an economic perspective - there is alot to be said for using commercial freighters. Their economics are much, much better, they are much cheaper to maintain and for most transport missions they are completely adequate. You don't need a C-17 to resupply a base with an 8000ft paved runway.
Maybe we'll just go with this.
Russia Tries to Sell Planes, Helicopters and Guns to Canada
Created: 01.06.2006
Russian trade delegation is visiting Ottawa this week to offer Canada “rather huge planes and helicopters and even guns,” as the Russian Ambassador to Canada Georgy Mamedov said on Wednesday, May 31.
Canadian government is poised to spend billions on new military hardware. Defense Minister Gordon O’Connor wants to acquire long-range cargo planes and heavy-lift helicopters, both for the Afghanistan mission. The planes would also enable the delivery of massive amounts of troops, their heavy equipment and humanitarian relief to world hotspots on short notice.
The Russians are trying to interest Canada in their Ilyushin Il-76 MD-90 four-engine long-range cargo plane and their Mi-17V heavy lift transport helicopter, and they’re offering the incentive of leasing instead of buying and delivering directly to Afghanistan where they’re needed most. The Russians also say they can beat the delivery time of the nearest competitors by almost half by getting them into the hands of the Canadian Forces by late next year.
Canadian government has committed to keeping at least 2,000 troops in Afghanistan until 2009 and has pledged to get them more aircraft.
The government headed by Stephen Harper appears to favor the American built C-17 Boeing Globemaster long-range cargo plane, and heavy Chinook transport helicopters, but Russia is already applying direct political pressure on Mr. Harper to eschew buying from NATO countries. Visiting Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov made a direct pitch to Mr. Harper earlier this year in Ottawa and President Vladimir Putin will keep the pressure on in their first meeting next month in St. Petersburg at the G8 summit. “He will have bilateral discussions with President Putin,” Ambassador Mamedov said, quoted by the Ottawa Citizen. “One of the major topics will of course be security ... be it the war on terrorism, or providing for critical security for our infrastructure in energy co-operation. It certainly means, also, arms sales.”
Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay will face similar lobbying when he visits Moscow later this month.
Ambassador Mamedov hosted a nearly two-hour presentation by five Russian arms sellers for an exclusive industry audience at the Russian Embassy in Ottawa on Wednesday, offering a full screening of the presentation the officials are showing to Canadian officials this week. The team acknowledged trying to persuade Canada to buy Russian would not be easy, but the delegation went to the trouble of bringing a draft treaty on military-industrial co-operation just in case.
“We don’t have any illusions here,” said Alexander Skobeltsyn, the leader of the trade mission and director of Russia’s federal agency on military co-operation. “Wise people say that rather than depend on one person, you should be friends with two.”
Mamedov reminded his audience that Canada already leases long-range Russian-built cargo planes to deliver humanitarian aid and heavy equipment, while the civilian equivalent of the Russian helicopter is now used on Alberta oil rigs. U.S. officials admit some Russian helicopters can carry more weight in mountains than their American counterparts.
But, here it is a'flying over Charleston, South Carolina - no doubt off to Shem Creek for some grits and shrimp!
You have to consider the loads to be transported. For example, the Canadian Army LAV-III exceeds the C-130 design envelope but is easily transported by the C-17.
Russian crude garbage. Cheap 3rd world toys.
Well, Charleston AFB, SC is the first place the C-17 is based out of.
Hmmmmm, lets see.
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/05/17/afghanistan-050517.html
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/cdnmilitary/kosovo.html
What war might Canada fight in North America?
Fact is, Canada DOES need strategic lift. Somehow, their troops have to get into theater and back. Somehow, that damaged helicopter may need transported back. Somehow you might need to do airdrops (http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123017752 ) of paratroopers, or pallets of supplies into an area that is to hot to land. You might have to fly into an area with NBC contamination, which could even be likely the case in a defense of S. Korea scenario (Something Canada would be part of). If it’s a high intensity conflict a “tank” may very well be exactly what you need to deliver into that theater of operation.
An A310 LACKS the “capabilities” to be a well suited military transport plane. Its inherent design is poorly suited to fill this role. It’s a band-aid fix even for those nations which operate them such as the Germans. Those nations who operate these fantastic economical A310’s as you suggest are left being “forced” to charter planes from the Ukraine to support their mission in Afghanistan because they lack the “capabilities” with their great and fantastic A310. They are crossing their fingers and hoping that someday they might have an A400 which exactly fills that void of a strategic lift platform they currently have. The British lease and I think recently have decided to buy C17’s for a reason. It’s not a “Yank” thing, it’s a “capabilities” thing. There is a reason why the Airbus was fired upon and hit by a MANPADS at BIAP in 2004 and you have 5-7 times as many C17s flying into there and zero have been hit! Because that C-17 has an active protection system incorporating flares and laser cannons to blind and incoming missile (IR) and radar detection systems which show if you’re being locked up, within range and from what direction. An A130? How well can that A310 do air to air refueling if need be?
A C130 is a fantastic platform for inter-theater airlift. He’s a tactical asset that is neither heavy nor a wide body.
An A310 is a makeshift half ass answer to complement a C130.
If Canada does not buy a C17 today then they will buy an A400 in the future. That’s where it’s at. However, an A310 is NOT a long term solution since this platform lacks the “capabilities”. Even those who operate an A310 are looking at replacing them ASAP.
Respectfully sir - the Candian Defence Ministry does not know squat about airlift.
C-130s (whether they be G or J models) can only haul standard cargo and 463L pallets. They cannot handle oversize and outsize cargo.
What is oversize and outsize cargo? Big stuff. Tanks. Heavy trucks. Other big items.
There are only three aircraft in the world that can haul oversize and outsize cargo: the C-17, the C-5, and the Antonov-124.
Who rescued the Russian sub that sunk last year?
ANS: The British and their RAF.
How? They used their C-17s (they own four) to bring the equipment to Russia. They got there first, before our C-5.
If you cannot haul oversize and outsize cargo, you are not a "player" on the international stage.
NATO now wants to purchase C-17s.
Years ago I watched one of these cheap 3 wd toys lift a 100 ton locomotive from the GM plant in London Ontario to Dublin Ireland . I don't give a damn about who built it . It was impressive.
I'm just happy we have a government that is starting to take things seriously. We need to buy American made equipment. I want F-22s damn it!!!!
The 9th Boeing ABM interceptor has been installed at Greeley. The problem with the rusted hinge has been repaired. Although it had been announced that there would be no further installation announcements after the eighth installation last winter, the ninth was announced anyway because of the rusted hinge problem.
Nice pic, you can almost see the guy on the runway wetting his pants.
I am not saying their right, while I do see a limited role for commercial freighters. Canada is probably going to buy the C-17 because Ottawa says so, and the military brass will pout.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
