Announcements & Decisions on Tactical & Stratigic Airlift (Fall 2005 and 2006)
- Thread starter 404SqnAVSTeach
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 8,198
- Points
- 1,160
Just to let folks around here know.
I emailed David Akin to express my concern about the impression left by Dawn Black's words going uncontested - that Canada was going to be buying an aircraft rejected by other nations. While it is true it has been turned down by one service of one nation for one mission that same nation, and many others have selected the same aircraft for other missions. Those missions are broadly in keeping with the role the C130J is likely to be asked to undertake, IMHO.
I got a very prompt and considered reply. The essence of which is that while Mr. Akin was aware of the "back story" on the aircraft he apparently couldn't get any senior public figures to go on the record to refute Ms. Black's claim.
I think that says as much about information management as it does about news reporting.
I emailed David Akin to express my concern about the impression left by Dawn Black's words going uncontested - that Canada was going to be buying an aircraft rejected by other nations. While it is true it has been turned down by one service of one nation for one mission that same nation, and many others have selected the same aircraft for other missions. Those missions are broadly in keeping with the role the C130J is likely to be asked to undertake, IMHO.
I got a very prompt and considered reply. The essence of which is that while Mr. Akin was aware of the "back story" on the aircraft he apparently couldn't get any senior public figures to go on the record to refute Ms. Black's claim.
I think that says as much about information management as it does about news reporting.
- Reaction score
- 21,730
- Points
- 1,360
Having toured around the AFG airspace in both our C130s and a RAF C130J, having an aviation background myself, and having spoken in depth with both CAN and GBR 130 crews, I can say that I think/assess that the 130J will work very well for us, for reasons beyond just being the only aircraft that will actually be available when we need them (i.e. yesterday!)
I would also like to wager that the A400M doesn't go IOC until 2011.
G2G
I would also like to wager that the A400M doesn't go IOC until 2011.
G2G
- Reaction score
- 16,880
- Points
- 1,010
I'll take your 2011 and raise you 2013...
- Reaction score
- 146
- Points
- 710
A post on this at "The Torch";
"Dishonesty in Journalism, Graduate School Division"
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2006/10/dishonesty-in-journalism-graduate_28.html
Mark
Ottawa
"Dishonesty in Journalism, Graduate School Division"
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2006/10/dishonesty-in-journalism-graduate_28.html
Mark
Ottawa
- Reaction score
- 8,198
- Points
- 1,160
geo said:
Further to Geo's comment:
http://eads.net/web/lang/en/1024/content/OF00000000400004/8/52/41142528.html/41180009_41180009/content/OF00000040950509/1/33/41480331.html
Meanwhile
http://eads.net/web/lang/en/1024/content/OF00000000400004/8/52/41142528.html/41180009_41180009/content/OF00000040950509/1/33/41480331.html
And
In one fell swoop it appears that Airbus has received a significant cash infusion, a lower manufacturing cost for a proven aircraft and a tie to a potentially very lucrative customer. As well as bypassing German labour problems to an extent. And China gains.....
As to the "learning curve" issue: Is that perhaps due to too many new projects at that same time with too many new hires?
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
There is a factor that is valid in the CTV story - certification is a problem for the C-130J and will be a problem for Canada if they purchase the aircraft. According to the story in the following link, it was primarily a certification issue that was the reason the aircraft was rejected by the US JCA competition.
http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-1994000.php
http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-1994000.php
- Reaction score
- 146
- Points
- 710
My further take:
"New planes for Air Force: Critics take aim at media and politicians"
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/007994.html
Mark
Ottawa
"New planes for Air Force: Critics take aim at media and politicians"
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/007994.html
Mark
Ottawa
- Reaction score
- 4,155
- Points
- 1,260
This looked like the best place to share this latest bit - feel free to move it as you see fit mods. Am I the only one worried about this jacking up the cost, and slowing the delivery clock?
Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act - http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/info/act-e.html#rid-33409
Choppers could carry troops into Afghanistan
Murray Brewster, Canadian Press, via Globe & Mail 29 Oct 06
Permalink
OTTAWA — Ottawa has quietly amended its contract with the maker of the navy's new Cyclone helicopters to ensure that the choppers will not only be able to hunt submarines, but also carry troops.
The design change, expected to add roughly $5-million to the overall price tag, would allow the air force to assign the choppers to a wide variety of different roles — including potential air support for the army in Afghanistan.
The Defence Department, however, denies that it's making the move with the Afghan mission specifically in mind.
Colonel Dave Burt, director of air requirements for the department, acknowledged that being able to strip the H-92 quickly of its sonar and radar gear, and strap in troop seats, was not part of the initial design for the Cyclones, the long-awaited replacements for the decades-old Sea Kings.
The change “will provide us with far better flexibility and capability,” said Col. Burt.
As it stands, Canadian soldiers operating in Afghanistan must hitch chopper rides into battle with other NATO countries.
But the decision to order the change to the Cyclone was not directly driven by the need for air support among Canada's 2,500 troops in Kandahar, said Col. Burt.
Nor has there been any decision to send the choppers to Afghanistan after they begin rolling off the assembly line in 2008, he said.
“There was no specific theatre — or specific event — that was brought to mind when the decision was made. This was done in the interest of transformation of the forces,” he said.
All three branches of the military are in the midst of a major shake-up orchestrated by Chief of Defence Staff General Rick Hillier, who is trying to break down the traditional barriers between the army, air force and navy. The idea is to make them more nimble and able to respond rapidly to crises at home and aboard.
As part of that plan Gen. Hillier wants to see the navy purchase or build an amphibious landing transport — or “Big Honkin' Ship” as he calls it — to rapidly deploy soldiers to global hot spots. Troop-carrying helicopters are a must for that kind of warship.
The air force is already preparing for its new role by training existing Sea King pilots on the finer points of picking up and dropping off troops.
The former Liberal government signed a $1.8-billion deal with Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. of Stratford, Conn., to build 28 helicopters and begin delivering one per month starting in November 2008. In addition, the company won a $3.2-billion, 20-year service contract.
In the meantime, there has been speculation that the breakdown-prone Sea Kings might see service in Afghanistan, in the hope that airlifts could help stem the tide of casualties from roadside bomb attacks.
The design changes ordered to the Cyclone will not affect its 2008 delivery date, said Col. Burt.
Ideally, the air force would like to see mechanics able to rip out the helicopter's submarine-hunting gear and replace it with troops seats on demand. Converting the old Sea Kings from one role to another is a long, painful process that requires putting the aircraft into the shop for months at a time.
Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act - http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/info/act-e.html#rid-33409
Choppers could carry troops into Afghanistan
Murray Brewster, Canadian Press, via Globe & Mail 29 Oct 06
Permalink
OTTAWA — Ottawa has quietly amended its contract with the maker of the navy's new Cyclone helicopters to ensure that the choppers will not only be able to hunt submarines, but also carry troops.
The design change, expected to add roughly $5-million to the overall price tag, would allow the air force to assign the choppers to a wide variety of different roles — including potential air support for the army in Afghanistan.
The Defence Department, however, denies that it's making the move with the Afghan mission specifically in mind.
Colonel Dave Burt, director of air requirements for the department, acknowledged that being able to strip the H-92 quickly of its sonar and radar gear, and strap in troop seats, was not part of the initial design for the Cyclones, the long-awaited replacements for the decades-old Sea Kings.
The change “will provide us with far better flexibility and capability,” said Col. Burt.
As it stands, Canadian soldiers operating in Afghanistan must hitch chopper rides into battle with other NATO countries.
But the decision to order the change to the Cyclone was not directly driven by the need for air support among Canada's 2,500 troops in Kandahar, said Col. Burt.
Nor has there been any decision to send the choppers to Afghanistan after they begin rolling off the assembly line in 2008, he said.
“There was no specific theatre — or specific event — that was brought to mind when the decision was made. This was done in the interest of transformation of the forces,” he said.
All three branches of the military are in the midst of a major shake-up orchestrated by Chief of Defence Staff General Rick Hillier, who is trying to break down the traditional barriers between the army, air force and navy. The idea is to make them more nimble and able to respond rapidly to crises at home and aboard.
As part of that plan Gen. Hillier wants to see the navy purchase or build an amphibious landing transport — or “Big Honkin' Ship” as he calls it — to rapidly deploy soldiers to global hot spots. Troop-carrying helicopters are a must for that kind of warship.
The air force is already preparing for its new role by training existing Sea King pilots on the finer points of picking up and dropping off troops.
The former Liberal government signed a $1.8-billion deal with Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. of Stratford, Conn., to build 28 helicopters and begin delivering one per month starting in November 2008. In addition, the company won a $3.2-billion, 20-year service contract.
In the meantime, there has been speculation that the breakdown-prone Sea Kings might see service in Afghanistan, in the hope that airlifts could help stem the tide of casualties from roadside bomb attacks.
The design changes ordered to the Cyclone will not affect its 2008 delivery date, said Col. Burt.
Ideally, the air force would like to see mechanics able to rip out the helicopter's submarine-hunting gear and replace it with troops seats on demand. Converting the old Sea Kings from one role to another is a long, painful process that requires putting the aircraft into the shop for months at a time.
- Reaction score
- 4,155
- Points
- 1,260
KH - if that's the case, I'm a >LITTLE< less concerned about escalating costs. Not that the troops aren't worth it, mind you, (Lord knows they've been waiting long enough), but every $ you don't have to spend on x and still get a good product, the more is available to spend on y.
Just speculation here but the change mentioned could be something that really cuts down the configuration time from one role to another. Like changing how the ASW gear is fitted into the cabin. If all of the equipment was configured to be latched in place vs. nuts and bolts it would be much easier to do a quick conversion. Not just for troop support but for medevac, cargo and evacuation missions. It would greatly enhance the capability to respond to any situation without delay while people dismantle gear that is installed by the usual methods.
- Reaction score
- 1,929
- Points
- 1,160
Kirkhill said:
Slide and pin-lock systems for interior and easy access removable sensors on the exterior. Getting it all out and off is the small [not so easy]part. Easy re-installation, calibration and acceptance by the crew is quite another kettle of fish.
- Reaction score
- 492
- Points
- 780
No, it wasn't in the SOR. The SOR talks about the requirement and justificaton and ends with "Therefore, the MH must be capable of transferring a minimum of six passengers."
The MHRS (Maritime Helicopter Requirements Spec) is more specific:
3.12.8 Furnishings and Equipment
3.12.8.1 Seats
3.12.8.1.1 Passenger Seats
3.12.8.1.1.1 The MH shall incorporate and include six passenger seats, two of which are fitted at all
times. The remaining four seats may be ROLE FIT EQUIPMENT.
3.12.8.1.1.2 All passenger seats shall be stowable while fitted within the helicopter.
beenthere is largely correct - the change was to move the tactical console from facing forwards in the rear of the aircraft to facing left along the left side, repositioning the ASW gear, and ensuring they go in and out easily. There are various configs, one is full up ASW with up to six seats, one is hybrid (all sensors but ASW) and up to 13 seats, and one is no console or mission rack and up to 22 seats. A large part of the extra cost is the seats...
The MHRS (Maritime Helicopter Requirements Spec) is more specific:
3.12.8 Furnishings and Equipment
3.12.8.1 Seats
3.12.8.1.1 Passenger Seats
3.12.8.1.1.1 The MH shall incorporate and include six passenger seats, two of which are fitted at all
times. The remaining four seats may be ROLE FIT EQUIPMENT.
3.12.8.1.1.2 All passenger seats shall be stowable while fitted within the helicopter.
beenthere is largely correct - the change was to move the tactical console from facing forwards in the rear of the aircraft to facing left along the left side, repositioning the ASW gear, and ensuring they go in and out easily. There are various configs, one is full up ASW with up to six seats, one is hybrid (all sensors but ASW) and up to 13 seats, and one is no console or mission rack and up to 22 seats. A large part of the extra cost is the seats...
Similar threads
