Strategic Airlift - We need more than the Herc!

[karl28]

Hi there Aesop081  I guess that I didn't take the part in turn about the runway space for the A380 sorry about that . I guess are only option is the C-17 but the Gov been taking a long time on that issue well here's hoping that it comes soon .

    Karl28

 

[Wizard of OZ]

What about the A400 supposedly does not need as much room as the A380.  But i know it is yet untested in the field but that seems to be our pattern.

 

[Inch]

What about the A400 supposedly does not need as much room as the A380.   But i know it is yet untested in the field but that seems to be our pattern.

Not only is the A400 not tested in the field, but it doesn't even exist in prototype form. If you're referring to the Cyclones being "our pattern", then I must reply that the civilian version of it has been flying for years, so it's hardly untested. It was fully certified by the FAA in Dec 2002, which of course followed numerous test flights.

 

[Wizard of OZ]

Understand that it is only a wet spot on a designer's page but i was referring more to the MGS then to the Cyclone, but that to has not been tested for frigate use yet.  Has it?  not being sarcastic a serious question.

 

[Inch]

No, it hasn't, but neither was the Sea King when we bought it and it worked out quite well. The H92 was designed as a naval helicopter so it really shouldn't be a problem.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

If a Seahawk has no problems landing on the flight deck the Cyclone won't either. Its not the aircraft its the pilot flying it.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

If a Seahawk has no problems landing on the flight deck the Cyclone won't either. Its not the aircraft its the pilot flying it.

To a point.   If the helo has a really high C of G, it might not make a great naval helo.   If it has skids, it is also not ideal.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Ah....gotcha and thanks

 

[aesop081]

How about building the IL-76 under liscence here in Canada ? We could be the manufacturer of our own spares then ? Just an idea for discussion....

EDIT : I know there alot of issues with this idea due to the number we would require and manufacturing costs but bear with me !

 

[McG]

U.S. wants Canada to create strike force
Force would need own aircraft, ambassador adds
ROBERT FIFE and ANNE DAWSON
CanWest News Service
OTTAWA
Printed in the Edmonton Journal, 04 Feb 05

Canada can â Å“punch above its weightâ ? on the global stage, but it must pour money into intelligence gathering, create a rapid-reaction strike force and buy heavy-lift aircraft to transport elite soldiers to world trouble spots, says U.S. Ambassador Paul Cellucci.  With a boost in defence spending expected in the federal budget, Cellucci said Canada's 55,000-member military needs to be reshaped to battle terrorist threats, confront ethic cleansing and help out in national disasters.

...

Cellucci said Ottawa also needs to purchase strategic airlift for a rapid-reaction force so it does not have to hitch rides with the U.S. air force or rent Russian-made Antonov cargo planes from Ukraine, as the military had to do during the recent tsunami crisis. â Å“Obviously, this would require an increase in defence spending, but I don't think it would be overwhelming. I think it is something that is achievable in the fairly near term,â ? he said. â Å“It would mean that Canada would punch above its weight and contribute substantially to international security, where Canadians have a great reputation.â ?

...

 

[a_majoor]

How about building the IL-76 under liscence here in Canada ? We could be the manufacturer of our own spares then ? Just an idea for discussion....

EDIT : I know there alot of issues with this idea due to the number we would require and manufacturing costs but bear with me !

Given the tiny number the CF "needs" (I suppose you can make a case for 100s, but in real terms I could see a squadron of 6), licenced production of any sort of aircraft is unrealistic, unless it is somehow combined with other orders. At a guess, at least 50 planes would have to roll off the assembly line before the investment pays off. The licencer would probably have a few reservations to all of this.

In more practical terms, should the IL-76 option or something similar be chosen, the company which inspects, modifies and essentially remanufactures the planes for our use would or should be able to produce the spare parts as well.

 

[aesop081]

Given the tiny number the CF "needs" (I suppose you can make a case for 100s, but in real terms I could see a squadron of 6), licenced production of any sort of aircraft is unrealistic, unless it is somehow combined with other orders. At a guess, at least 50 planes would have to roll off the assembly line before the investment pays off. The licencer would probably have a few reservations to all of this.

In more practical terms, should the IL-76 option or something similar be chosen, the company which inspects, modifies and essentially remanufactures the planes for our use would or should be able to produce the spare parts as well.

I was well aware of the productio number limitations you speak of........but for argument's sake, what if a revamped IL-76 ( modern avionics, western standard......), built in Canada could be exported under liscence, like we did with the F-5 ?  I was fully aware of the implications of what i was suggesting before ( i.e. my edit note) by was just currious on the "what if" factor........trying to think "outside the canadian box".......

 

[Slim]

trying to think "outside the canadian box".......

So you don't think that it should be made in Quebec, built to work rather than grease a politician's pockets in kickbacks, actually function the way its supposed to and make enough to do us some good instead of just a token number to allow the Fiberals to say that they're supporting the military without actually doing something!?

Sounds great, when do we start? ;D

Slim

 

[aesop081]

So you don't think that it should be made in Quebec, built to work rather than grease a politician's pockets in kickbacks, actually function the way its supposed to and make enough to do us some good instead of just a token number to allow the Fiberals to say that they're supporting the military without actually doing something!?

Sounds great, when do we start? ;D

Slim

Hummmm...thanks for the funny right before work ! We did build the F-5 under liscence, kept a limited numver for ourselves and exported.........should we at least look into the posibilities of doing the same in this case ?

 

[404SqnAVSTeach]

I think Canada is gonna go for the A-400.  Good in between the C-130J and the C-17.  The problem is that its not flying yet.

 

[canuck101]

Do you think they would buy maybe 10 c-130J to retire some of the old E models first till the are making the A400

 

[Zoomie]

E model hercs are due for retirement once the FWSAR aircraft come on line.

A-400 is a nice idea - we'll see how it flies once they actually build one.

 

[Jungle]

E model hercs are due for retirement once the FWSAR aircraft come on line.
A-400 is a nice idea - we'll see how it flies once they actually build one.

Yes, it does look like a nice idea. But with first delivery scheduled for 2009 (if nothing goes wrong  :) and orders for 180 airframes, it will likely be 10 to 15 years before we see any of them available for the CF. We need something that is available now.

 

[Sam69]

E model hercs are due for retirement once the FWSAR aircraft come on line.

Z,

It was my understanding that the FW SAR will not result in the retirement of all the Es... just those currently dedicated to SAR. Am I mis-informed? (sure wouldn't be the first time)

Cheers,
Sam

 

[Zoomie]

... it will likely be 10 to 15 years before we see any of them available for the CF. We need something that is available now....

Preaching to the choir my friend.