• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Looking Through the Brit Bargain Bin Again[and now Lockheed's]

crazyleggs

Guest
Inactive
Reaction score
0
Points
60
http://dgpa-dgap.mil.ca/DGPA/ntl/050316/f00004ab.htm

First hit - Premier mot clé PUBLICATION:   The <Ottawa> Citizen
DATE:   2005.03.16
EDITION:   Final
SECTION:   News
PAGE:   A1 / Front
BYLINE:   a journalist
SOURCE:   The <Ottawa> Citizen

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Britain offers to lease <Canada> 10 used airplanes: Proposed deal echoes purchase of trouble-plagued second-hand subs

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The British government is offering to lease <Canada> a fleet of used Hercules aircraft in a proposal reminiscent of the second-hand submarine deal the Liberal government signed in the late 1990s, the Citizen has learned.

The proposal has received initial interest from Defence Minister Bill Graham's office, but sources in Britain say the Hercules the British are offering are a poor fit for the <Canadian> military's airlift needs.

The 10 planes in question are a newer model Hercules, known as C-130J "short" aircraft and are suitable for search-and-rescue missions, pilot training, and limited transportation of gear and soldiers. But a number of militaries, including Britain's, have concentrated on using Lockheed Martin's C-130J "stretch" aircraft to fill their air transport needs. Those planes are five metres longer than the Lockheed C-130J and can carry a large amount of equipment and troops.

The British want to get rid of their 10 C-130J "short" aircraft because they are limited in what they can carry. The money they would receive from <Canada> would help fund the purchase of new, larger transport planes known as C-17s.

In making its proposal, British officials bypassed <Canadian> military officers, who are reportedly not keen on the plan, and went directly to Mr. Graham's office. An official with Mr. Graham's office said yesterday he did not have any information available on the proposal.

Defence industry officials in <Canada> and Britain noted the used planes would not be covered by a full warranty or support from the manufacturer, as would be the case if they were bought new.

They said it made more sense to buy or lease new planes, in the process getting spare parts and engineering support from the original manufacturer.

One industry official likened the deal to a replay of the purchase of used submarines from Britain. The <Canadian> government originally announced in 1998 it would enter into a barter arrangement for four second-hand submarines from Britain. Instead of <Canada> paying cash for the boats, the British military would train for free at <Canadian> bases.

However, that arrangement never took place and the <Canadian> government paid cash to buy the subs. But over the last several years, the $750 million submarine program has been dogged with problems. A fire on <HMCS> <Chicoutimi> last fall -- which killed one <sailor> -- as well as a long list of technical glitches on the other subs, has prompted critics to label the boats as lemons. Opposition MPs have demanded answers about whether the British government saddled the <Canadian> taxpayer with defective second-hand military gear.

<Canada> is in desperate need of a replacement for its aging fleet of Hercules aircraft, the military's workhorse transport plane. Plans call for those aircraft to start being replaced at the end of the decade, but senior military officials have made no secret of their desire to move faster on the Hercules replacement.

Prime Minister Paul Martin also announced last year it is a priority for his government to replace the military's fleet of Buffalo search-and-rescue planes. Those smaller aircraft are based in Comox, B.C. and other key locations throughout the country. Mr. Martin's government announced it was fast-tracking that $1.3-billion purchase with the aim to get the new planes delivered in 18 months. However, since the original announcement, that replacement program has proceeded at glacial pace.

<Canada> operates 32 Hercules, but many of those aircraft have the distinction of having the highest flying hours of any military Hercules in the world. Some are more than 35 years old.

The aging Hercules were highlighted in a Queen's University report released last year about the decrepit state of the <Canadian> Forces. That study warned that if the aircraft are not replaced soon, the military will lose much of its ability to transport troops and equipment.

In addition, a report prepared in 2003 for the Defence Department noted that fewer Hercules are available for flights on a daily basis because the aging planes have had more structural problems, such as cracks in their wings. That has meant more inspection and repairs, forcing the military to keep the planes on the ground more often. First hit - Premier mot clé    
 
If we use them to replace the 10 E's, I'm fine with it, but the fact the British are buying C-17's pretty much sums up our true need.



Matthew.    ;)
 
Cdn Blackshirt said:
If we use them to replace the 10 E's, I'm fine with it, but the fact the British are buying C-17's pretty much sums up our true need.

Doesn't Britain have an armed forces exponentially larger than ours?  I don't see your point.
 
Then again Michael, it only takes a couple of hours to drive across the UK as opposed to days in Canada.  Size of the Armed Forces doesn't necessarily have to be the main criteria.  We have to cover great distances within our own country, without even thinking of overseas deployments.  We, although we have a smaller Force, require more transport abilities. 

Even if we purchased them as replacements or spare parts for our current fleet, it may be a good idea as an interim solution, until we can afford or even decide on what requirements we need in the future.

GW
 
I would think its a good idea, depending on what their asking for the planes.  Having 10 "newer" Hercs to replace 10 of our oldest, at bargain prices, could be ideal to solving some of the immediate problems in terms of aircraft availability.

On the one hand, lets not forget the submarine fiasco - that still, btw, isn't completely solved.

However, depending on the circumstances of this deal, perhaps its something we should take a closer look at?  Not only would replacing 10 of our oldest models with newer Hercs put more aircraft on the flightline at any given time, would it not also enhance on the job pilot training, and keep the larger Hercs available for long haul flights?  Any thoughts?
 
Cdn Blackshirt said:
If we use them to replace the 10 E's, I'm fine with it, but the fact the British are buying C-17's pretty much sums up our true need.

I'm almost certain that we have more than 10 Es; I think it is more like 19 Es and 13 Hs.

I think the compelling question to ask is why are the Brits really getting rid of their Js? Why is the USAF slashing their order of Js? Why is the US OAG so negative about the J? Why is LM so desperate to find more customers for the J?

Sam
 
Sam69 said:
I'm almost certain that we have more than 10 Es; I think it is more like 19 Es and 13 Hs.

I think the compelling question to ask is why are the Brits really getting rid of their Js? Why is the USAF slashing their order of Js? Why is the US OAG so negative about the J? Why is LM so desperate to find more customers for the J?

Sam

My bad....I misread the following from the Air Force website....

http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/equip/cc-130/future_e.asp

Future Plans:
As part of the Air Force's Air Mobility Framework initiative, a capability study in now under way to develop recommendations for the composition of Canada's airlift fleet of the future. This will be based in large part on joint assessments with the Army and Navy regarding their future air-mobility requirements.

A separate but related development is the Fixed-Wing Search and Rescue Project, which is investigating the acquisition of a fleet of new twin-engined SAR aircraft that would then allow retirement of the ten most elderly CC-130Es as well as all six CC-115 Buffalo aircraft in the CF fleet, all of which are currently assigned to SAR duties.



M.    ;)
 
Sam69 said:
I think the compelling question to ask is why are the Brits really getting rid of their Js? Why is the USAF slashing their order of Js? Why is the US OAG so negative about the J? Why is LM so desperate to find more customers for the J?

Quite cunningly, this "deal" has been pitched directly to the Minister, and it appears from the media reports [ ::)] that no military pers were consulted or informed of the pitch. As has been stated elsewhere, one of the most outstanding charactersitics of Canadian procurement is "surprise." Brace yourself.

Cheers.


 
 
I think that LM is so desperate to sell the J's because they are involved in the world of business.  And selling product generates revenue that is used to make profit.  These planes seem decent, they are the current model, maybe these area stepping stone into the J stretch models, if all the controls and engines and jazz like that is common, we should be happy to get this before someone else jumps on it.  All else fails, maybe we can buy the C-141 when it comes out fo US service,
 
http://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/2005/01/question_when_i.html

Biggest issues for us would be the prop delamination problem and crew manning.  Both of which can be resolved.

But I don't think we'll see those Brit Hercs anyways.  We'll continue using those "on demand" AN-124s till something bad happens.
 
Sam69

Did the Brits ever get the J's qualified for paratroops? IIRC there was a lot of concern expressed about the turbulence from those 6-blade "mix-master" props.
 
Kirkhill said:
Sam69

Did the Brits ever get the J's qualified for paratroops? IIRC there was a lot of concern expressed about the turbulence from those 6-blade "mix-master" props.

The Para trials went fine.  The J has become our main para aircraft, from both low to high level.
 
Many thanks Brit, ancient or otherwise.
 
No probs,

So would you like our Mk5 (Short Js) then?  Bit of a sports car to fly, nice kit & only a few hours on the clock.  We can provide them either painted grey or, as a special offer, in the new green.  Not too much choice in interiors though....
 
Brit, when you stretched your H's (?) and turned them into K's (?) by adding that fuselage plug, any idea how much that cost per?
 
George Wallace said:
Then again Michael, it only takes a couple of hours to drive across the UK as opposed to days in Canada.   Size of the Armed Forces doesn't necessarily have to be the main criteria.   We have to cover great distances within our own country, without even thinking of overseas deployments.   We, although we have a smaller Force, require more transport abilities.  

Hmmm - a bit of red herring.  Tpt in Canada should be by train for trg (ie plan ahead), and we have positioned forces across the country to provide some sort of dom footprint.
 
PPCLI Guy said:
Hmmm - a bit of red herring. Tpt in Canada should be by train for trg (ie plan ahead), and we have positioned forces across the country to provide some sort of dom footprint.

You could apply the same to the UK or any other nation.
 
George Wallace said:
You could apply the same to the UK or any other nation.

Exactly.  The rationale for strategic lift is based on the requirement to project forces extra-nationally.
 
PPCLI Guy said:
Hmmm - a bit of red herring. Tpt in Canada should be by train for trg (ie plan ahead), and we have positioned forces across the country to provide some sort of dom footprint.

Following up on that; we don't have much in the way of Rail transport to our Northern areas.  No Rail to Alert.  No Rail to do SAR taskings.  Even with deploying troops on major exercises to sites like Wainwright, we still use a lot of Air Transport Command assets as well as 'rented' Commercial Air.  We are a nation that has vast distances that have to be covered, and ground transport is not necessarily timely.  These aircraft may be necessary to lighten the load put on our current fleet as we plan for upgrades or replacements.
 
Kirkhill said:
Brit, when you stretched your H's (?) and turned them into K's (?) by adding that fuselage plug, any idea how much that cost per?

Our Ks are really 1967 Super Es in drag (some H bits, mainly E bits and -15 engines).  The plugs were pushed into half the fleet decades ago, so not too sure if the price would have much relevance.  Marshall Aerospace are more than happy to cut and shut any Hercules you like.  The K-model designation was just for UK bound aircraft, with subtle differences of some UK avionics.  The long Ks have an inccreased max TOW (to 160,000) although some of that is taken up by the weight of the plugs.  As we tend to bulk out rather than weight out the long aircraft do have advantages.  But the strip t/o is more limiting, due to reduced pitch angle, and you have to be a little more carefull when landing.  Although Marshall Aero have become quite good at filling in the missing bits when we scrape a tail.

We did ask LM to quote how much it would cost to plug a Mk5 to turn it into a Mk4 long aircraft.  Not sure we ever got an answer...

 
Back
Top