Boeing now involved in fixed-wing SAR aircraft replacement
This is interesting.
Alenia Aeronautica and Boeing Team Up in the C-27J Programme for the US Armed Forces
(Source: Finmeccanica; issued April 27, 2006)
Alenia Aeronautica and L3 Communications have signed a memorandum of understanding with Boeing Integrated Defense Systems, under which the latter will join the Global Military Aircraft Systems (GMAS) joint venture. GMAS was set up in 2005 to put forward the C-27J aircraft for the US Air Force and Army’s Joint Cargo Aircraft (JCA) programme.
Boeing will be fully involved in the joint venture, including the development of the special version of the aircraft requested by the US armed forces and, should GMAS be selected, in the production of the C-27J in the US. The C-27J team includes Alenia North America, Boeing, Dowty, Honeywell, L-3 Communications, Lockheed Martin, Rolls-Royce and two dozen other suppliers from around the USA...
The C-27J is..., thanks to its big cargo hold, the only one [tactical transport aircraft] with a high degree of interoperability with larger transport aircraft [i.e C-130J].
The C-27J is currently being evaluated in Canada as a replacement for the country's fleet of search and rescue aircraft...
H/t to this post at Army.ca.
Alenia Aeronautica and Boeing Team Up in the C-27J Programme for the US Armed Forces
(Source: Finmeccanica; issued April 27, 2006)
Alenia Aeronautica and L3 Communications have signed a memorandum of understanding with Boeing Integrated Defense Systems, under which the latter will join the Global Military Aircraft Systems (GMAS) joint venture. GMAS was set up in 2005 to put forward the C-27J aircraft for the US Air Force and Army’s Joint Cargo Aircraft (JCA) programme.
Boeing will be fully involved in the joint venture, including the development of the special version of the aircraft requested by the US armed forces and, should GMAS be selected, in the production of the C-27J in the US. The C-27J team includes Alenia North America, Boeing, Dowty, Honeywell, L-3 Communications, Lockheed Martin, Rolls-Royce and two dozen other suppliers from around the USA...
The C-27J is..., thanks to its big cargo hold, the only one [tactical transport aircraft] with a high degree of interoperability with larger transport aircraft [i.e C-130J].
The C-27J is currently being evaluated in Canada as a replacement for the country's fleet of search and rescue aircraft...
H/t to this post at Army.ca.
posted by Mark, Ottawa at 4:56 p.m.
11 Comments:
I'd be more confident in the C-27J proposal if Bombardier was on board - any aviation/defence purchase in this country is complicated if Bombardier's not a part of it.
Babbling Brooks: The question is can the Conservatives get a majority without TO and Montreal. I suspect they can and hope they do not over-pander at the expense of the CF.
Mark
Ottawa
Mark, could you do me a favor?
Could you point me to, or explain to me here the need for strategic airlift?
Let me rephrase that, not the need, but the rational. My understanding is that, within NATO only two members have this capability. The rest do as we do.
My fear is that big ticket items will preclude buying items for front line soldiers.
My guess is that it's better to have well equipped troops on the ground, that got there in a rented plane than to have under equipped troops who arrived on a nice new plane.
I'm just looking at costs, and where the CF needs the most stuff.. Basically bang (quite literally mb) for the buck.
cameron: You make a good point, esp. as NATO now has a deal for rented strategic lift.
See this post (check the links, please):
"Maybe the Air Force will get both strategic and tactical airlift"
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2006/04/maybe-air-force-will-get-both.html
With our involvement in Afstan likely to continue our own strategic lift makes a lot of sense given that the country is far away and landlocked, without railroads. An awful lot of stuff has to be constantly flown in from a considerable distance (in our case from our "secret" base in the Gulf).
http://www.persiangulfonline.org/takeaction/news0605-2.htm
And of course C-17s make sense for rapid deployment of DART (but then I don't think the CF should be doing DART at all).
Otherwise the case for C-17s over the Herc replacement, fixed-wing SAR, and heavy-lift helicopters is pretty thin. Unless the government is really serious about giving the Army a true rapid deployment capability overseas in which case the C-17s would be essential, given the distances from Canada to almost anywhere such a deployment would take place (except maybe Haiti).
If the government is willing to fund all these aircraft purchase in the next two-three years fine. But if the C-17s delay any of the others for long then I think that would be a mistake.
Remember also it was the Liberal cabinet that last November shot down a proposal by Bill Graham urgently to make those three procurements (other than strategic lift).
http://www.canada.com/national/story.html?id=d1d91e61-974d-4f66-bf86-fe16e73b126f
I'm not really able to comment on the Army side, but my impression is that at least for Afstan they have about as good equipment as anyone.
The money problem will be paying for the costs of expanding the Army as the Conservatives have promised--especially if they keep their absurd campaign promises to put (now non-existent) battalions in Goose Bay, Bagotville, Trenton and Comox.
Also the Navy needs replenishment ships and some sort of amphibious assault ship. There is a good discussion of the Air Force and Navy issues here:
"The Need for Canadian Strategic Lift"
http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/admin/books/files/CanadianStrategicLift.pdf
If the government insists on building new ships in Canada this will only increase the cost and slow delivery--but it's what all our governments do.
Hope this helps.
Mark
Ottawa
Thanks Mark, I'm at the office right now, but I'll check those links out later.
My understanding is that the strategic lift planes are bigger and that, from an economy point of view, that it might make sense to have smaller planes rather than running bigger ones that are half empty.
Am I totally off the mark on this?
Cameron: Sounds good to me. It all depends on how often you need that big a load; flying a half-full four-engined jet is a hell a lot more expensive than two full four-engined turboprops.
Also, if we buy just four C-17s (latest rumint) then there will be occasional availabilty problems with so few planes.
The ideal of course is to get both.
Mark
Ottawa
That's what I figured, plus from a purely worst case senario thing, mb it would be better to provide people who want to kill you with two smaller targets than one big one?
Cameron: Max payload:
C-130J
42,000 pounds
http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=92
C-17
170,900 pounds
http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=86
Really can't comment on target issue, but both planes have systems to ward off missile attack.
Mark
Ottawa
Mark, jamming (or is that Sci Fi) or flares/chaff?
I'm just wondering how many times we have to move 170,900 pounds all at once.
I dunno.
Cameron:
"May 5, 2004...
Fixed wing [US] aircraft are also flying in theatre [Iraq]: C-5s, C-9s, C-17s, C-40As and C-130s. Most military aircraft, including transports, are equipped with sensors that can detect incoming missiles and can drop flares to deflect the heat-seeking missiles or chaff to spoof those that are radar-guided.
Approximately 50 percent of the Air Mobility Command fleet has anti-missile defensive systems. But 100 percent of AMC’s C-17s (105 aircraft), and 90 percent of the C-130s (approximately 500) are so equipped. The C-130, C-17 and C-5 fleets have flare-based countermeasures systems. Used in combat drops, the C-17's cockpit floor is sheathed with Kevlar to protect the pilots against ground fire. Only a handful of C-17s are being equipped with a new laser countermeasure system, called LAIRCM. Many C-130s have electronic warning receivers, using sensors in the nose and tail and chaff. The tanker fleets of KC-135s and KC-10s have no defensive systems...
Chaff and flares typically are employed to deflect heat-seeking missiles. In Baghdad, flares are often fired in a precautionary mode when landing. Confidence in these basic missile defense systems is not absolute. Pilots are flying evasively to reduce further risk. “High and fast” is one tactic reported to minimize aircraft exposure to the “bad guys”...
Advancements in technology allow upgrade missile defense systems. Newer "aircraft survivability equipment," or ASE, can be described as integrated countermeasure dispensing systems that include detection equipment, threat adaptive computer, and deployable decoys. Another system includes a new laser countermeasure system; called LAIRCM where the computer guided intense light interferes with the missile guidance.
These systems are designed to provide the capability of automatic or pilot commanded response, and works alone or in coordination with other countermeasures defensive systems to defeat Air Interceptor (AI), Anti-Aircraft Artillery (AAA), and Surface-to-Air Missiles (SAMs)...'
http://appropriations.senate.gov/hearmarkups/record.cfm?id=221157
Canada could get what we consider necessary and are willing to pay for.
Mark
Ottawa
Mark, thanks.
I say get a few transports and then get us a Spectre.
Because nothing says "Hi there, please die" like an airborne artillary piece.
Post a Comment
<< Home