Boeing says Canada running out of time on aircraft purchase

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.

Canada needs a strategic lift asset. This lift asset should be able to carry certain standard military pallets and combat vehicles into a theater of operation. It must be “capable” of doing things like short field landings, landing on unimproved surfaces, have immense range and and and. It has to be able to “do” certain things to be effective. Efficiency in military terms is often an oxymoron. A C130 or C17 is grotesquely overpowered. They are not built like a commercial jet. They can’t dock on a standard commercial dock found at most airports, but they have the thrust to take off on short airfields and the landing gear to deal with shitty airstrips in some nation whose name ends in “stan”. A 757 is in the class of planes with the A310. The 757 engine is what is basically used on the C17. Only they use FOUR of them and throttle them down a bit. But the point is that efficiency is sacrificed to have certain “capabilities”. How often does a C17 use an arrestor hook? But nonetheless he has one. How often does he need all the hardware on board for air to air refueling? But if he should require it, he has that “capability”. When the first C17 was fielded, few would have ever thought that armor would be an issue. In the meantime, C17s have been shot at and the crew sits inside of armored compartments in a plane with an active protection system. Do armored panels add weight? Do they make a plane more efficient?

An A310 was designed to be a cattle car like a 757. They are designed to be as cheap as possible while meeting the market demands in air travel and safety requirements. These planes are NOT designed to meet the needs of an Air Force that is supporting ground forces abroad somewhere. You can modify them and kinda try to do the trick, but they often still don’t meet the requirements as the Germans have figured out. Today they are scrambling trying to figure out what to do, and in fact, they even invoked the idea of leasing a C17 until an A400 comes on line in the future. This is the nation that is largely behind EADS and Airbus altogether and has the A310.

Someone arguing for the A310, is someone with their head up their ass. They have another agenda whatever that may be. Canada WILL buy another plane and it will either be a C17 today or a A400 in the future. EADS would prefer to get the sale, so any issue pushing Canada to a decision today on the C17 purchase is a threat to their potential sales in the future. Hence, they must say what they did. Do you expect EADS to support an argument in favor of Canada buying a C17?

Why the C17 will sell-

The C17 is a proven airframe, yet newer, and has both tactical and strategic applications. It’s a plane that is a “jack of all trades” and it can actually do all these roles well!

Delivered on time and today UNDER anticipated cost, this plane is a known quantity. There is no risk involved. Passing up the C17 equates to assuming risk. Will the A400 come in at cost? Will it meet design specs? Will it meet its timetable? Fact is, Airbus and EADS are having issues meeting near all their schedules. Some of their platforms such as the Eurofighter are coming in with HUGE delays because of major technological failures along the way. Why do you think they renamed the plane to Eurofighter? It used to be called the Jaeger 90 (Hunter 90)! Yes, as in the year it was to go operational! Just a “minor” 12 year delay before true IOC.

What is the risk in failing in either: Cost, Time or in Capabilities if you buy a C17 today?

But as always, regardless of how late, how expensive and all shortcomings, those nations that subsidize Airbus/EADS and are part of this consortium WILL buy this plane (Period). EADS was formed by the governments of some European states, Airbus to this day is heavily subsidized, many of the heads in EADS are political leaders. The division between state and private corportaion is very fuzzy with EADS. Yes they do have stock, but they are NOT a real private firm like say Boeing. The point is that the European nations behind EADS will buy EADS products no matter what.

Canada’s decision to buy C17 will be a decision largely driven by: Cost, capabilities, availability and risk.

Let me explain this to you in pictures. These are things the A310 can NOT do:

Airborne drops-

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/images/c-17_air-dop_020816_03.jpg

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/c-17-98105trp.jpg

http://www.airextreme.de/aviexpic_I94llx8/c17para.jpg

Take off and landings on unimproved surfaces in the Caucasus, Afghanistan, Iraq or elsewhere –

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d3/C-17_4.jpg

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/c-17.jpg

http://www.netting.it/sfondi/images/grandi/c17.jpg

A ramp with the ability to haul certain vehicles including Styker/LAV25, a Leo or other vehicles –

http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/images/people/mar-c17.jpg

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/c-17-5.jpg (You should be able to “roll on / roll off” vehicles)

http://www.globemaster.de/assets/images/c-17_abrams.jpg

Detectors and a self-defense system –

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/c17-5.jpg

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/ELEC_LAIRCM-MD_on_C-17_lg.jpg (The C17 carries flares, a laser IR defense system against IR missiles, radar detection, and locating equipment.)

He separates air and pumps nitrogen into the fuel tanks thus making it less flammable. http://www.b-domke.de/AviationImages/Globemaster/2368.html

The plane should be able to accommodate standardized palletized loading systems, as used by the military –

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/c-17-cargo.jpg

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/c-17-20.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/463L_master_pallet (In fact, the C17 can automatically lock and unlock pallets. The floor of the plane is actually automated a lot that used to be done by people)

Air to air refueling – http://www.defenselink.mil/transformation/images/photos/2006-04/Hi-Res/060417-F-1166S-009.jpg

He’s got escape hatches in the roof, is able to drop altitude at enormous rates if he needs to do a combat landing. He can climb at phenomenal rates (Holds a world record in that for transport planes), something that might be nice to have when taking off at BIAP and trying to get over MANPADS ceilings. The crew compartment is armored. Even the load master sits in a Kevlar cube more or less. He carries systems like Link 16 (Tied into data links) and and and.

A C17 has over 16 hour’s endurance with their new add on internal tanks. He can do that with a 130,900 pound payload onboard (another record). Why is 130,900 pounds significant? It’s the weight of a M1A1 MBT. Max payload of the C17 is 171,000 pounds, crew, fuel and all the other stuff is not cut from that. But, it gets better; able to land on 3,000 foot runways (WITHOUT cable arrestor, but he has that option as well) that are 90 feet wide and unimproved surfaces, the C17 can actually turn around on such airstrips without help. How is he able to deal with FOD? Because of how the airflow comes out the rear when he is on the ground he’s OK. It’s not set up like a commercial plane and kicks up less stuff.

EADS wants to sell a A400M as well. http://www.airbusmilitary.com The C-17 is available “today” with no risk of time delay, technological failure, and cost over runs. C-17 is a reality and the fact that Canada is along side the US on most international operations kind of makes the logistical support required to keep the C17 operating in these places easier. You can piggyback off of the US. Truth is, the A400 when it does hit the ground will be a C-130 on steroids, just like their Jaeger 90 is a F18 on steroids. The A400 will not have the max gross payload nor range of a C17 even when it does go operational. The A400 will be better suited than a C130 for Stryker/LAV and other systems, but is still short of a C17 that will haul MBT’s around as was even done in 2003 in Northern Iraq. The C17 is in a completely different class of airframes. A310 is a temporary fix that even now does not work well.

"The A310, along with the A300 are however capable of transporting pallet freight, containerized freight and men into serviced airfields. Which does account for a not insignificant portion of what the militaries of the world haul around." You say

Even that he can't do - as well.

The C-17 which I already noted can easily load and unload pallets, and carry substantially more. An A310 with more difficulty loading and unloading, can carry less total weight not as far and has greater restrictions in dimensions of what it can carry. The C-17 has a defensive aid suite and unlike the Airbus has not been hit over Baghdad (DHL hit in the wing).

http://community.webshots.com/photo/235558476/1235558991058804159VAMLJM
http://community.webshots.com/photo/235558476/1235561786058804159Lmzcmk

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,1039411,00.html (News article)

This despite 5 - 7 TIMES as many C17s operating out of BIAP alone than A300 landing there the C17 was never hit by a MANPADS:

1. A C17 can sink and climb fast to get out of MANPADS range. An A310 can not sink as fast nor even remotely climb at the same rate. He spends more time in the engagement envelope of MANPADS weapon systems.

2. C17 has a comprehensive defensive aide suite making him not impervious, but a MUCH more survivable platform in a threat environment, as is the case even in Afghanistan.

If all you want is a cheap commercial plane, then charter them. That is what the US DoD does through: ATA, Flying Tigers, Tower Air, Evergreen and others. But…… look at what they do. They fly into places like Kuwait, transfer the troops onto a C130 or C17, and then fly into Baghdad or elsewhere. Why do you think they do it that way?

Right now, you as Germany or many others, lack “strategic lift”. What you have is civilian platforms that in many cases can’t even get those pallets you mention to their destination. Therefore, you either piggyback off the US or like the Germans charter Ukrainian platforms with a military strategic lift capability. You are “lacking” essential “capabilities” that under certain conditions may bite you in the ass. Can an A310 move troops, some pallets and some cargo? Sure, but even that he can’t do as well. How long does it take him to load or unload those pallets? How many can he carry? How far can that A310 go vs. a C17? What is if you are trying to transport a damaged helicopter back home? How fast can you convert that A310 to carry litters with casualties (As we have done with C17)?

If we discount all those “relevant capabilities” such as:

1. Roll on/off vehicles (Ramp, high payload, wide open bay)
2. Air to air refueling
3. Short field landings/takeoffs
4. Ability to operate unassisted once landed (APU, tight turns, backup…..etc)
5. Unimproved airstrips

We still come up with a plane that can’t do the job “as well”.

However, what you try to hand wave away is EXACTLY the issue. You try to discount those aspects that are pertinent to many military operations and have been used in the Balkans, Iraq 1991, Iraq 2003, Afghanistan, Vietnam, East Timor today, etc. An A310 simply lacks capabilities that are required from a military airframe. We are not talking about a tanker, AWACS or rivet joint that sits far off, and never lands at some “shithole”. What you are doing at this point called: “polemics”. It’s the technique of arguing, but it lacks substance in this case.

I could say: If we discount off-road capabilities, carrying capacity, range, and protection of occupants, a Chevrolet Cavalier would make a good military Jeep. After all, it is cheap and uses a lot of off the shelf components. A Chevrolet can also carry a suitcase just like that HMMWV! That is actually a quiet accurate analogy to the A310 vs. C17 issue we are debating and the logic you are applying.

You lack an airframe that has strategic lift (period). What you have today is a temporary makeshift answer that only partially fills the demands placed on a military strategic lift asset. The A310 is not even an option. Canada WILL buy something; the question is what? EADS would rather not see Canada today commit to a C17.

we are talking about completely different applications for multiple platforms. I would love to hear your thoughts on the american 737 military transport.

Canada will buy the C-17, it is just a matter of the fact that the Canadian military brass has different priorities. I am not saying they are right, but I do see the utility of commercial freighters for CERTAIN APPLICATIONS, and they would probably be served well by additional planes.

Their attitude is we need this heavy lift maybe ten times a year, lets call Volga. While our C-130's are falling apart and we use them every day. At the moment the C-17/C-130 deal is either/or, there isn't the money in their very small defense budget for both.

I see where they are comming from. Do you appreciate how small the Canadian defense budget it? why don't you look it up. And the A310/A300 does it VERY well because there are hundreds of them in service world wide as freighters, I managed a leasing portfolio of airbus freighters. The ancient Airbus A300 is still coming off the assembly line and will be for another year because it is an excellent freighter. The cargo carriers of the world have also been shaking down every airline on the planet operating the family because they want the planes yesterday. American Airlines is beating them off with sticks.

I mentioned in my post clearly that the DoD typically charters aircraft for the purpose of transporting troops routinely.

ATA
Evergreen
Tower Air (In the past)
Flying Tigers (in the past)

A charter you don’t have to maintain and pay for when you don’t need them. Typically, the USAF carters these planes and they fly’s into safe areas where troops are then transferred to other planes as needed.

However, Canada has NOTHING that can fill the need as a strategic lift asset for their military. You talk around the issue. Bottom line remains, if in S. Korea we have a war tomorrow, Canada will be involved, and “lacks” the required strategic lift (period). Germany like Canada and many others are in the same boat.

http://www.nato.int/docu/update/2006/03-march/e0323a.htm (read)

Since they lack strategic lift capabilities, they are left having to charter aircraft from the Ukraine or piggyback off the US.

Military application of transports emphasizes certain aspects that are irrelevant or even cost prohibitive in civilian use. In commercial use, you are looking for a cattle car. Something that can pack on may people and go from point A to point B cheaply. That an A310 can do well. But he CAN NOT fill the role of a strategic lift asset as you suggested. He CAN NOT.

Airframes like the 747, DC10, 737, 707 in the DoD fill specific limited roles that are NOT for the purpose of strategic airlift. They are planes like:

http://www.fas.org/irp/program/collect/rc-135_01.jpg (Rivet Joint – sucks up electrons in the sky)

http://www.aladdinsoft.com/im/aero/TankerKC10_001.JPG (tanker - flying gas station)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/64/Awacs.sentry.750pix.jpg (AWACS)

You are delivering more polemics here. Now your defense of this asinine position has taken you down the path of trying to divert the argument into another issue – The Red Herring fallacy.

Your original argument of the A310 being a strategic lift asset is ridiculous. I believe at this point you know that as well.

The CIA (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6999272/site/newsweek ) uses a 737 for prisoner flights.

But you DO NOT see a 737 flying across the Atlantic with a M1, broken helicopter, airborne troops ready for a jump or even just palletized cargo in its belly going into an area not deemed completely safe.

“The ancient Airbus A300 is still coming off the assembly line and will be for another year because it is an excellent freighter.” You said.

The Cessna 172 is also still being built! http://se.cessna.com It too is an economical, safe, and fun to fly airplane (That’s the plane I became a pilot in). It makes a poor strategic lift asset; just like that Chevrolet Cavalier makes a poor HMMWV substitute in my previous analogy. Again, you throw out a Red Herring. Who cares!!!??? It does NOTHING about the fact that the A310 is INCAPABLE of dealing with numerous LIKELY scenarios it might have to face as a strategic military lift asset. The A310 is as a DESIGN a poor choice and one can even state only limitedly capable for this role.

Again, Canada can either buy a proven, no risk dual hat (Strategic/tactical) airlift asset that is the same platform as its primary ally uses. Or they can assume risk, cross their fingers nothing happens in the meantime, hope EADS makes its schedule of 2010 and buy a plane that is actually a little less suited than a C17 in the strategic lift aspect (A400M).

“Do you appreciate how small the Canadian defense budget it?” You say. It does not matter. If you want certain capabilities, you have to pay. Even the US has to pay. There is no conspiracy against Canada. Fact is, an A400 is not cheap either. However, there is an upside to this story. Despite the initial shock of $250,000,000 apiece roughly at today’s cost, the C17 is actually not that bad since the airframe has a designed useful life of over 30,000 hours and you have to break down what it costs “per pound moved” over distance not just look at the cost of the airframe upfront. A 777 is also not cheap, but is in reality a very cost effective airframe. The C17 uses actually a lot of off the shelf technology (Ironic since that is something you used in a spun argument against it). An example is its engines that are the same as on a 757. Practically the whole cockpit is off the shelf. Highly economical motors, with a longer than normal life (they are throttled down and even outlast their civilian counterparts), a long life airframe, highly capable self diagnostics…….. all actually make the C17 not the huge a cost one might think. In reality, that C17 hauls a huge load and high volume within it. When you break it down into terms of cost per Kg per mile, you see a slightly different story. When you look at cost over the airframes lifespan, you see a different story.

Example: C130 service life = 19,800 hours, C17 service life = 30,000. C130 = 5 pallet holds, C17 = 9 and they can stack them too! Which means potentially more. C130 = 72,000 pounds payload, C17 = 171,000 pounds. Is a plane that cost more initially really less cost effective also? Tell that to those buying 777, Airbus A380.

whatever, we are having two completely different conversations.

And I never said the A310 could do strategic lift, I said it was a good cargo plane for conventional cargo missions, which represent a not-insignificant portion of military cargo flying.

You don't need a C-17 to fly pallets of laundry detergent and toilet paper to a depot in Qatar. You don't use an A310 to deliver vehicles to the middle of nowhere. (although I have seen it done, very poorly). The right tool for the right job. For the record, the US Navy flies their 737 combi/freighter all over the world.

A charter you don’t have to maintain and pay for when you don’t need them.

Funny, that is the exact attitude of the Canadian military towards strategic lift. When they need the lift - they call Volga.

Again, while not saying they are right - I do understand where they are coming from. I also understand where you are coming from. The fleet of Canadian C-130's which is used 25/8/366 is rapidly becoming unserviceable and needs replacement. At present the Conservative government in Canada (who is not conservative in any American sense of the word, and is just all-round useless) are treating C-17's and C-130's as an either/or proposition, they are not buying both at this point.

Can Canada use the C-17, yes. Is it their most pressing military aviation need at present, no.

As for Canada potentially going to Korea - or participating in any real war for that matter, they are breaking under the strain of their token presence in Afghanistan. A lack of planes isn't the deal breaker in the grand scheme of things.

For the record, I am not a Canadian - just an American who works here.

“You don't need a C-17 to fly pallets of laundry detergent and toilet paper to a depot in Qatar” You say

However, you might want to fly that C17 full of detergent into BIAP 2003.

“Funny, that is the exact attitude of the Canadian military towards strategic lift. When they need the lift - they call Volga.” You say

Moreover, when the Ukraine says “Nyet”, you are cordially “fucked”.

You can reasonably rely on non-military assets flying into safe areas with mundane cargo. However, asking another nation to fork over a mission essential asset, in a war they may or may not support, to fly your military hardware into a threat area is not something you can depend on. The Ukraine backed Iraq, but……

I can today reasonably state that the USAF will get a charter service to Germany, Qatar or Kuwait. However, flying with ATA into BIAP is another story. There are even legal ramifications involved if you begin flying commercial aircraft for military operations. Again, those A310 in the German Luftwaffe have the German armed forces insignia and are piloted by German Luftwaffe pilots. I bet in Canada it’s no different!

http://www.propandjet.net/gaf31310+22.htm

And then we are exactly back to square one. Those nations that use the A310 in their military intend to use this platform as a transport plane for military purposes. As the Germans have found out, it does not work well!

Everyday, literally thousands of service members fly all over the world on commercial air carriers or booked flights for the US DoD. The military itself charters these planes for scheduled routes such as the Rest and Recuperation (R&R) flights that use to go out of Germany and fly into the US. Even major troop movements internal in the US are “usually” done with commercial air carriers. These commercial air carriers are limited in their scope of what they can do for you. In fact, on such a chartered flight even the transport of radioactive material, certain chemicals, etc becomes a HUGE issue.

The Germans bought the A310 (MTT) Multipurpose Transport and Tanker to do exactly that - Be a military transport. Today they pay for these planes but still have to charter Ukraine planes to do “a lot” of the work for them in Afghanistan. Add that to your cost equation!

The Air force does not need to maintain a fleet of airframes identical in capabilities to a civilian counterpart just to move people from one safe area to another. The reason why these Air Forces procured this plane is so they can use them as a strategic lift asset. Something the plane can’t do very well for a military in a real world setting.

http://www.sfu.ca/casr/101-cc150mrtt.htm

Canada is no different. Today they have an A310 which is really useless as a transport. If you want to move bodies from Kuwait to Canada, charter an Air Canada plane. http://www.aircanada.com/en/home.html

This would be cheaper than the MoD maintaining a fleet of militarized A310’s. However, for the role of strategic lift, as the military needs it, use a C17, a capable airframe for this role, unlike an A310.

Truth is, lots of military hardware fly’s onboard of FEDEX planes across the Atlantic every day and lands in places like Frankfurt. The DoD makes extensive use of charter, commercial airlines, commercial freight even. However, they canNot replace a C17, which is a militarized transport platform that has specific “capabilities” enabling him to do things an A310 for the Canadians and Germans or DC10 from ATA cannot do.

“You don't need a C-17 to fly pallets of laundry detergent and toilet paper to a depot in Qatar. You don't use an A310 to deliver vehicles to the middle of nowhere. (although I have seen it done, very poorly). The right tool for the right job. For the record, the US Navy flies their 737 combi/freighter all over the world.” You say.

What you do is yet again skirt the real issue. Canada has NO, NONE, ZERO, ZIP, NADDA, strategic military lift assets. Canada is completely reliant on others for this. You can have a C17 that can carry troops as well but also carry a tank, or an A310 that only has a limited role. The USN uses their 737 in a limited role. The USAF that supports the ground component needs to have a wide body like a C17. In fact, a lot of the requirements placed on the C17 design originate not from the USAF but from the USA.

- Example: When I flew back for R&R in 2004 I flew C130 from BIAP to Kuwait and then ATA to Dallas over Germany, Atlanta and one other stop. The way back went the same route. Commercial may not be the best answer into BIAP at that time.

- When the Turks blocked our use of their territory to launch an attack from the North, C17’s out of Germany were loaded up with M1A1HA tanks and flew into Northern Iraq.

- Damaged US helicopters are often flown out of Iraq via C17.

- Special Ops fly in on C17s with their complete compliment of helicopters, troops, and all other hardware. All tasks an A310 would be challenged doing.

Canada needs a strategic lift asset. They will buy a C17 because it is a dual hat platform that can play the strategic and tactical airlift role rather effectively. It is a low risk, available, cost effective option that their primary ally uses as well. I am sure that the real decision makers see it the same way.

I really don't see what you are arguing about, I have not said Canada has strategic lift, I have not said the A310 can be used for strategic lift. All I have said is I see a place for commercial freighters for traditional freighter missions. Something you appear to acknowledge. The Canadian airforce has used the A310 successfully for 15 years, and having lost two to tanker conversions, they have indicated a desire for more.

Canada is getting the C-17, that is a done deal. It could be announced at any time.

The problem with the final statement, and the reason the Canadian military brass is cool to the purchase of C-17's is that the C-17 will never be bought in large enough numbers to replace the capacity of twenty-odd C-130's that will be retired in the next decade. That is a severe problem the Canadian military faces going forward. I understand their concern. Losing 20 of 32 Hercules and only receiving a handful of C-17's in replacement is going to be a debilitating blow to the Canadian military.

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.