RUMINT of Canada wanting more C-17's

[McG]

PYs are fixed across the CAF, but we do have control over where they are located as well as the number that are paid as Cpl vs the number paid as Sgt or Capt.  No fraction of the CDS factors into the lifecycle cost of any capital project; it is not that complicated.

The public does not understand PYs.  They do understand $$.  Consider your discussions in he F35 thread - there are arguments to buy a cheap aircraft to get 2 to 2.5 times the number of airframes at the same lifecycle cost.  To a civi who will not understand discussion on technical capabilities, that sounds like a pretty good deal and they do not care that an additional 1.5 to 3 times the PY need to be harvested from other CAF functions to achieve this.  However, if you do factor the personnel cost, then all of a sudden the bigger fleet of cheaper platforms starts to look less fiscally responsible to that civi.

SWE is already in project costs.  Why not all pay?

 

[Kirkhill]

Mk IV tank had a crew of 8 PY.  Modern tanks have reduced that to 4 PY with 3 PY possible and 2 PY in sight.

The Lancaster had a crew of 7 PY. CF-188 has reduced that to 1 PY.

The Iroquois had a complement of 280 PY.  The replacement is likely to reduce that to something like 100 to 120 PY.

The PYs are part of the system and have to be priced into the solution.

My pet peeve is that too often the number of PYs assigned to a task seem to take on a semi-mythical value ..... 1000 PY Battalions, 200 PY Companies, 4 PY tanks, 3 PY LAVs - The ability of technology to amplify the capabilities of the available PYs, too often, in my opinion, is fully exploited for a variety of reasons.

Colin Campbell's battalion was nothing like a Currie battalion or a 4 CMBG battalion.

The PYs, and the cost of the PYs have to be factored into the cost of providing solutions.

 

[MilEME09]

According to Canadian Defense review it is indeed life cycle costs, and we are getting the lone C-17 for just under 200 million.

CTV News has reported  that The Defence Department intends to purchase a Boeing C-17 Globemaster III at a price tag of just under $200 million, but with a projected lifespan cost of $1.7 billion.

Sources told CTV News the Defence Department is buying the C-17 aircraft with unused money in its budget that must be spent by the end of the fiscal year, otherwise the funds would go into general revenue.

CTV also reports that the purchase comes as opposition MPs criticize the government for failing to spend adequate money on wounded veterans and soldiers battered by mental-health issues.  Last month, it was revealed that Veterans Affairs had, since 2006 when Conservatives came to power, returned $1.13 billion to the federal treasury in unspent funds to the government.

Canada’s four CC-177 Globemaster III strategic airlifters were delivered in 2007-2008. The CC-177 in Canada helps provide everything from the rapid delivery of troops and cargo transport to oversized combat equipment from coast to coast to coast and to anywhere else worldwide.

http://www.canadiandefencereview.com/news.php/news/1651

 

[Colin Parkinson]

and did they calculate the lifespan saving of having 5 airframes rather than 4to do the same work?

 

[YZT580]

If 5 is better than 4 than 6 is better than 5 etcetera.  Replacing the C130's for routine overseas missions and either a) stationing a couple at one of the NATO bases in Europe or b) confining their use to N America except when the type of mission dictates that a herc be used would reduce the total airframe use of the C130 fleet and extend their lifetime exponentially.  As well, crew time would be reduced.  Would seem to me that doubling the C17 fleet would end up as a cost saving action and improve the fleet usage efficiency a whole bunch.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Like anything the law of diminishing returns applies. Trying to forecast the future needs of such a mixed fleet will be tough as no one predicted a 10 year combat mission in Afghanistan. I think it's fair to say that we should predict on at least one more sustained combat mission on top of normal usage during the lifespan of these aircraft.

 

[HB_Pencil]

and did they calculate the lifespan saving of having 5 airframes rather than 4to do the same work?

From what I know (and admittedly, I'm not as familiar with their tempo as with other airforce assets), the tasking of our C-17 fleet is one that there is a near infinite amount of work that could be accomplished with them. Thus adding another aircraft might not decrease the amount of work, rather it would mean we would do more work instead.

I always think back to what one ADM told me in 2005: if we ever got C-17s there would be no end in work for them... everybody will be calling us for help.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I think that ADM was quite right ... but it's "good work," the kind that earns us favour with allies at very low cost to us. Ditto an "extra" AOR (or two), above our minimum operational requirement, to serve and support allied navies ... it also earns important brownie points in the 'councils of the mighty.' (I'm not talking about formal groups like the NATO Defence Committee which are, largely, useless but harmless, but, rather, the informal gatherings of politicians and admirals and generals that happen, fairly often, in hallways ... that's where we want to be seen as being"reliable" and "punching above our weight," and as having a smallish but effective "vest pocket army," and so on.)

 

[Retired AF Guy]

The public does not understand PYs.  They do understand $$.  Consider your discussions in he F35 thread - there are arguments to buy a cheap aircraft to get 2 to 2.5 times the number of airframes at the same lifecycle cost.  To a civi who will not understand discussion on technical capabilities, that sounds like a pretty good deal and they do not care that an additional 1.5 to 3 times the PY need to be harvested from other CAF functions to achieve this.  However, if you do factor the personnel cost, then all of a sudden the bigger fleet of cheaper platforms starts to look less fiscally responsible to that civi.

Not to mention you will need more equipment to support the extra cheap aircraft.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Colin P: Further to "no one predicted a 10 year combat mission in Afghanistan",
http://milnet.ca/forums/threads/116924/post-1342534.html#msg1342534

one feels compelled to flog a meme that seemingly cannot be put to a decent rest:

Afghanistan and Fact-Challenged Canadian Media
https://cdfai3ds.wordpress.com/2014/03/24/mark-collins-afghanistan-and-fact-challenged-canadian-media/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[McG]

Seems the PM has signed off on this.

Ottawa poised to buy additional C-17 cargo jet as Boeing closes assembly line
'Unique, time sensitive opportunity': military briefing to government
Murray Brewster
CBC News
18 Dec 2014

The Harper government has signed off on a proposal to buy an additional C-17 Globemaster heavy-lift transport plane, bringing to five the number of the hulking airborne workhorses in the air force fleet.

Multiple defence sources say the decision to acquire the aircraft was made recently, but has not yet been announced as officials are still hammering out the contract details.

The Canadian air force has been pushing for the deal for over two years, telling senior officials that there is "a strong operational and business case" for a additional aircraft given how much use the fleet has gotten since it was introduced in 2007.

Earlier this year, The Canadian Press reported that National Defence believed it could afford the estimated US $169-million price tag because it had not spent all of the funds made available for the initial purchase of four C-17s.

Documents obtained under the Access to Information Act show the department had allocated $1.8 billion to complete the first purchase, but only $1.4 billion was spent.

There is urgency because Boeing stopped production on the workhorse aircraft last summer, and published reports in the U.S. indicate as many as 10 of the gigantic planes were up for sale.
The U.S. government announced in 2006 that it would stop buying the aircraft.

The company has relied on foreign sales to keep the plant that produces the Globemaster operating in Long Beach, Calif.

Boeing refused comment on Wednesday.

Australia recently committed to buying two of the remaining aircraft, but diplomatic sources said this week Tony Abbott's government is expected to go even further next year and buy additional C-17s.
In its briefings to government, the military described the chance to procure another one as a "unique, time-sensitive opportunity for DND."

The air force argued that adding another C-17 would expand its capability in disaster and humanitarian missions, while also easing the burden on the existing fleet.

"Canada's experience in Afghanistan and other theatres of operation has shown that fifth (C-17) aircraft would prove a highly beneficial asset to the Canadian Forces," said the briefing document, dated Feb. 14, 2012.

National Defence and Public Works and Government Services Canada have struggled to deliver a whole host of hardware, including ships, army trucks, helicopters and fixed-wing search-and-rescue planes.

Buying an additional C-17 would be comparatively easy, since it would likely involve a sole-source deal with the manufacturer, arranged through the U.S. government.

The Globemaster is an expensive aircraft to operate, according to U.S. Air Force comptroller and defence industry data. It is estimated to cost US $23,279 per flying hour, according to 2012 estimates.

The C-130J Hercules, the other military transport recently purchased by the air force, rings in at US $13,644 per flying hour.

The possible purchase of another C-17 was not listed in the government's defence acquisition guide, released last June.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ottawa-poised-to-buy-additional-c-17-cargo-jet-as-boeing-closes-assembly-line-1.2877413

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Well it's nice to have some good news on the procurement front.

 

[YZT580]

The Globemaster is an expensive aircraft to operate, according to U.S. Air Force comptroller and defence industry data. It is estimated to cost US $23,279 per flying hour, according to 2012 estimates.

The C-130J Hercules, the other military transport recently purchased by the air force, rings in at US $13,644 per flying hour.

Not much difference when you consider the far greater payload and the greater distance per hour flown.  In fact, the C17 would work out as a far cheaper a/c per tonne mile.  CBC does like to make the Harper govt. look bad don't they?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Every government for the next 20 years is going to quietly under their breath thank the Conservatives for this purchase.

 

[Kirkhill]

Aircraft $/hr       km/hr $/km   kg   $/tonne-km m3 $/m3-km
C-17       $23,279.00 830 $28.05 72600 $2.59 638.8 $0.04
C-130    $13,644.00 657 $20.77 21687 $1.04 170.52 $0.12

It appears that the Herc is the solution for lifting mass (a load of pallets of beans and bullets for example)  while the C-17 is the solution for lifting volume (vehicles).

Horses for courses?

 

[The Bread Guy]

Every government for the next 20 years is going to should quietly under their breath thank the Conservatives for this purchase.

FTFY

While I'm not wild about all the current government's defence moves, thumbs up for taking advantage of extra money to buy something on the fly (no pun intended) that's been useful before, and will likely be VERY useful down the road - if we don't have the troops or gear to help, we have the option (again) to give those countries who do a lift as needed.

 

[CougarKing]

Even though one of the articles above said as many as 10 C17s were unsold, this source below says Boeing is sitting on 8 unsold aircraft:

Flight Global

Boeing sitting on eight unsold C-17s, with more orders pending
By: DAN PARSONSWASHINGTON DC Source: Flightglobal.com 20:58 16 Dec 2014
Boeing has sold two more C-17 transports to an undisclosed customer, but it will likely end the year with eight unsold white tails.

There are 10 Boeing C-17 airlifters in various stages of assembly at the company’s Long Beach, California, production facility.

(...SNIPPED)

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Aircraft $/hr       km/hr $/km   kg   $/tonne-km m3 $/m3-km
C-17       $23,279.00 830 $28.05 72600 $2.59 638.8 $0.04
C-130    $13,644.00 657 $20.77 21687 $1.04 170.52 $0.12

It appears that the Herc is the solution for lifting mass (a load of pallets of beans and bullets for example)  while the C-17 is the solution for lifting volume (vehicles).

Horses for courses?

I don't understand your calcs, Kirkhill.

If you want to calculate $/tonnes-Km, you have to divide the hourly cost by the number of Km's in an hour and then divide by the number of tonnes on the plane (i will use metric tonnes, since you put the cargo capacity in Kgs - which is 1,000 kg to a tonne)

This means that:

C-17: $23,279 / 830 / 72.6 = $0.39 $/tonnes-Km.

C-130: $13,644 / 657 / 21.7 = $0.96/tonnes-Km.

The C-17 wins again, even for weight.

 

[Bearpaw]

I agree with OBGD on this---i looked up the relevant data from wikpedia and calculated:

Efficiency of C-130J-30 vs C-17-ER

Max Payload at criusing speed for max range efficiency using

1) US $13,644 per flying hour for C-130J-30 with max range  5,250 km with max load 19,958 kg

2) US $23,279 per flying hour for  C-17-ER with max range 4,482 km with max load 77,519 kg
(I used the max range for the C-17 as using the centre-line tank increases range at cost of
reduced payload for the C-17-ER)

Time of flight for

1) C-130J-30 is 5,250 km/643 km/h = 8.17 hr

2) C-17-ER is 4,482 km/830 km/h = 5.4 hr

Cost of flight

1) 8.17 * US$13,644 = US$111471

2) 5.4 * US$23,279 = US$125706

Payload delivery is

1) 5250 * 19958 = 104779500 kg*km

2) 4482 * 77519 = 347440158 kg*km

Cost efficiency is

1) 104779500 kg*km/US$111471 = 940 kg*km/US$

2) 347440158 kg*km/US$125706 = 2764 kg*km/US$

From this it is clear that the C-17-ER is about 3 times as efficient as the C-130J-30.

Payload volume space is

1) 104 m^3

2) 553 m^3.

I would like to see the RCAF buy C-17-ERs to total 8 or 9 aircraft while they are still available. 


Bearpaw

 

[dimsum]

FTFY

While I'm not wild about all the current government's defence moves, thumbs up for taking advantage of extra money to buy something on the fly (no pun intended) that's been useful before, and will likely be VERY useful down the road - if we don't have the troops or gear to help, we have the option (again) to give those countries who do a lift as needed.

Exactly.  Without knowing the specifics (money, ramp space, manning), I'm surprised that we only bought one.