The fix appears in for C-17s for the Air Force
Interesting that Minister of National Defence O'Connor thinks he knows better that the Canadian Forces what sort of transport aircraft they need. Stephen Harper has to keep those campaign promises though--but what about the promise the relace the C-130 Hercules?
The Harper government is strongly considering buying up to six Boeing C-17 long-range military transport planes at a cost of more than $1.2-billion, a move that would overturn the plans of both the previous Liberal government and the Chief of the Defence Staff, General Rick Hillier.
The purchase, which defence industry sources say could be announced in the coming federal budget...
It would also likely rule out, for the time being, Gen. Hillier's proposal -- announced in the dying days of the previous Liberal government -- to spend $4.6-billion on 16 short-haul tactical transport planes, most likely Lockheed Martin C-130Js.
"If they go with six, that means they'll delay tactical lift [good grief!]," a source close to the Defence Department said. "Hillier will react to that."..
The prices quoted are comparing apples to oranges in a deliberate effort to low-ball the cost of C-17s. The price of the C-17s is just for the aircraft themselves and does not include life-cycle costs such as training, maintenance, spare parts, etc. The C-130J costs about $80-million out of the factory so the cost for sixteen would be $1.28-billion (about the same for the C-17s). Yet the story gives the full $4.6-billion life cycle costs of the Hercules--a very different thing indeed.
There is clear effort by the "defence industry sources" (could they be from Boeing?) quoted in the story to mislead the public, and the Globe's reporter, Michael den Tandt, is too dim to note the discrepancy in the pricings.
Sources say the government would announce it plans to buy a fixed number of strategic aircraft by a certain date, possibly as early as a year from now.
The requirements would state that the aircraft must also have tactical or short-haul capability, which the C-17 does, to ease pressure on the badly outdated Hercules fleet.
That requirement would rule out the Russian-built Antonov, which the Canadian military has rented to deploy its Disaster Assistance Response Team.
Unlike the C-17, which can land on rough runways as short as 900 metres, the Antonov requires 3,000 metres of paved strip...
So the competition will be set such that just one plane can win---just the sort of process defence critic O'Connor opposed last December when criticizing the Liberals' tactical airlifter plan with its clear favouring of the C-130J. Maudit hypocrite.
Senior officials in the Defence Department met last week to discuss procurement priorities, known internally as the defence capabilities plan, sources familiar with the meeting say.
During the meeting, department officials were told the new government intends to buy strategic lift, new fixed-wing search-and-rescue craft [how much longer will this "priority" take--long enough to give Bombardier the contract for its Q Series?], support ships and helicopters -- in that order...
But at least the Navy icebreakers seem to be slipping beneath the waves.
Update: From an August 2005 Fraser Institute study, The Need for Canadian Strategic Lift (which is also not keen on the Navy's Joint Support Ship as now configured) (second paragraph out of sequence for flow):
...
To get where they are needed in theatres overseas, strategic lift is needed. Tactical lift--mostly by air--refers to the ability to move around in a given theatre...
For airlift, using large airlifters for small cargo loads in inefficient. Rather, it may well be in the interest of the Air Force to have a mixed fleet of larger, medium, and small transport aircraft [e.g. C-27Js or C-295s also doubling as fixed-wing SAR]...
A well-rounded airlift fleet for Canada, therefore, would entail six to eight C-17s or equivalent number of other aircraft to provide strategic airlift needs, and 15 to 20 C-130Js to replace the older model Hercules in the current fleet...
H/t to Spotlight on Military News and International Affairs.
You will note that the Globe story above does not list a Hercules replacement amongst the equipment acquisition priorities. Maybe by the time, if re-elected, the Conservatives get around to that the C-130J will be out of production and only the A-400M well remain.
Cross-posted to Daimnation!
The Harper government is strongly considering buying up to six Boeing C-17 long-range military transport planes at a cost of more than $1.2-billion, a move that would overturn the plans of both the previous Liberal government and the Chief of the Defence Staff, General Rick Hillier.
The purchase, which defence industry sources say could be announced in the coming federal budget...
It would also likely rule out, for the time being, Gen. Hillier's proposal -- announced in the dying days of the previous Liberal government -- to spend $4.6-billion on 16 short-haul tactical transport planes, most likely Lockheed Martin C-130Js.
"If they go with six, that means they'll delay tactical lift [good grief!]," a source close to the Defence Department said. "Hillier will react to that."..
The prices quoted are comparing apples to oranges in a deliberate effort to low-ball the cost of C-17s. The price of the C-17s is just for the aircraft themselves and does not include life-cycle costs such as training, maintenance, spare parts, etc. The C-130J costs about $80-million out of the factory so the cost for sixteen would be $1.28-billion (about the same for the C-17s). Yet the story gives the full $4.6-billion life cycle costs of the Hercules--a very different thing indeed.
There is clear effort by the "defence industry sources" (could they be from Boeing?) quoted in the story to mislead the public, and the Globe's reporter, Michael den Tandt, is too dim to note the discrepancy in the pricings.
Sources say the government would announce it plans to buy a fixed number of strategic aircraft by a certain date, possibly as early as a year from now.
The requirements would state that the aircraft must also have tactical or short-haul capability, which the C-17 does, to ease pressure on the badly outdated Hercules fleet.
That requirement would rule out the Russian-built Antonov, which the Canadian military has rented to deploy its Disaster Assistance Response Team.
Unlike the C-17, which can land on rough runways as short as 900 metres, the Antonov requires 3,000 metres of paved strip...
So the competition will be set such that just one plane can win---just the sort of process defence critic O'Connor opposed last December when criticizing the Liberals' tactical airlifter plan with its clear favouring of the C-130J. Maudit hypocrite.
Senior officials in the Defence Department met last week to discuss procurement priorities, known internally as the defence capabilities plan, sources familiar with the meeting say.
During the meeting, department officials were told the new government intends to buy strategic lift, new fixed-wing search-and-rescue craft [how much longer will this "priority" take--long enough to give Bombardier the contract for its Q Series?], support ships and helicopters -- in that order...
But at least the Navy icebreakers seem to be slipping beneath the waves.
Update: From an August 2005 Fraser Institute study, The Need for Canadian Strategic Lift (which is also not keen on the Navy's Joint Support Ship as now configured) (second paragraph out of sequence for flow):
...
To get where they are needed in theatres overseas, strategic lift is needed. Tactical lift--mostly by air--refers to the ability to move around in a given theatre...
For airlift, using large airlifters for small cargo loads in inefficient. Rather, it may well be in the interest of the Air Force to have a mixed fleet of larger, medium, and small transport aircraft [e.g. C-27Js or C-295s also doubling as fixed-wing SAR]...
A well-rounded airlift fleet for Canada, therefore, would entail six to eight C-17s or equivalent number of other aircraft to provide strategic airlift needs, and 15 to 20 C-130Js to replace the older model Hercules in the current fleet...
H/t to Spotlight on Military News and International Affairs.
You will note that the Globe story above does not list a Hercules replacement amongst the equipment acquisition priorities. Maybe by the time, if re-elected, the Conservatives get around to that the C-130J will be out of production and only the A-400M well remain.
Cross-posted to Daimnation!
posted by Mark, Ottawa at 9:54 a.m.
7 Comments:
Frankly I believe C-17s are more appropriate for a country of Canada's size and far-flung cities/facilities.
One attractive point about the Globemaster is that, with the greater capacity and range, it has three to four times the lift capability of the Herc. Which naturally reduces the number of aircraft, facilities and aircrew required to meet the CF's air mobility goals.
In the short term the C-17 incurs greater initial capital costs, but I think it should reduce operational fixed costs greatly across the service lifetime of the aircraft.
But none of those pluses excuses the Minister for fixing the process.
Great reporting, Mark. Earns yet another guest post over at Cerberus today.
Have a good weekend.
Ted
On a positive side note, if he's fixing for a Boeing product, it sort of puts the ex-lobbyist issue to rest, doesn't it?
But back to the main issue...let me argue the other side of the coin here. Acquiring the C-17's in the near future would fix a few problems for the CF.
First, it would give us some serious strat-lift capability that we don't have now. Since we're more likely to be deploying outside our own borders than fighting within them, strat-lift makes sense. Look at the aircraft's capabilities beyond simple range: rough field, short field, survivability, payload - this plane can do things our current fleet can't.
Second, because the Globemaster can play the tac-lift game, it takes pressure off the ridiculous op-tempo we have for our Hercs right now. Fly them less, and they will last longer.
Which brings me to the third point: if we can put less pressure on the Hercs, we can have a serious bid process to replace them, and not jump out of sheer necessity into the C-130J.
Oops, that takes us back into lobbyist territory again, doesn't it? ;)
Buying the C-130J's prior to getting the C-17's means you might not get the best tac-lift replacement. Buying the C-17's first means you get more proven capabilities, plus the option to take more time on the tac-lift purchase.
There is some argument as to how efficient a "tactical" transport the C-17 is.
http://www.sfu.ca/casr/bg-airlift-update.htm
Moreover, delaying the Herc replacement until after the fixed-wing SAR planes may still open the way for the A-400M to be purchased--as the SAR plane will take over the SAR burden from old Hercs and should take over some of the tactical transport mission as well. We could end up with a fleet of C-17s, A-400Ms and the fixed-wing SAR plane.
http://www.sfu.ca/casr/bg-airlift-tactical.htm
Meanwhile, how long can the Hercs last while these other aircraft are eventually purchased?
And watch out for Bombardier for the SAR plane, even though the least-capable candidate.
I agree that ideally we should have both C-17s and C-130Js (and C-27Js for SAR and light tactical transport), but I'm almost willing to bet we will end up only with the first.
Mark
Ottawa
At least in part because "The C-130J program survived threats of early termination, and the program is currently set to run through 2008."
http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20060320005949&newsLang=en
And then, if things do not change, only the A-400M remains.
Mark
Ottawa
odie441: Yet now we have a fair degree of Antonov access via NATO.
http://www.sfu.ca/casr/bg-airlift-nato.htm
Mark
Ottawa
I was so infuriated by this issue that I dedicated a whole Blog to it:
http://boeingc17.blogspot.com/
Post a Comment
<< Home