Replies

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.