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

Will the C17s Make it to the Ramp?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Meridian said:
Question to those who can clear up (or confirm) Boeing's spin, but they state:
......
This implies to me that at least Boeing considers this aircraft to actually be (albeit perhaps oversized) tactical lift, with strategic abilities, rather than a strategic lift airframe, with tactical capabilities.   Which is it, or is it all just semantics?  Globesmasher had wrote earlier that it was indeed very useful tactically...

I raise this only because Mr Akin (Spelled right, hopefully) and the MSM have often quoted this "strategic vs tactical" argument.

The strategic versus tactical discussion/debate is one that has crossed into new water here as new technology has come on line and made readily available to Air Forces.

Traditionally “strategic airlift” was viewed as the “inter-theatre airlift”; The transport of men and materiel from home base to a safe intermediate staging base (ISB) located close to but away from the combat area.  The strategic airlifters were thought of as the C-5 Galaxy, the C-141 Starlifter and our very own A310 Airbus.  They can carry vast amounts of personnel and/or cargo and can transit the globe fairly quickly at high altitudes, but they cannot operate any deeper into the AOR than the ISB.

Tactical airlift was then referred to as the “intra-theatre airlift” which was the transport of the same men and materiel from the safe ISB to the forward operating locations (FOLs) and austere combat LZes.  The traditional tactical airlifters were the C-160 Transal and the C-130 Hercules to name but a few.  They are much smaller than the strat airlifters, but more capable of operating on dirt strips with combat redundant systems that would allow them to survive in the hostile, non-permissive AOR.

Recently it has been found that the cross loading operations at the ISB was far too slow, cumbersome and costly.  It slowed down the speed at which materiel was reaching the front and soon became unacceptable.  Furthermore, modern army equipment such as the LAV lll no longer fit into existing airframes.

It is now that technology such as the Boeing Globemaster lll C-17A and the soon to be born Airbus A400M (~2012) that the delineation between strategic and tactical are now blurred and no longer really relevant in the new paradigm.  These two new aircraft can now carry out-sized cargo loads that were traditionally carried on the strategic airlifters and they can carry them over strategic distances, inter-theatre so to speak.  Then, they can skip the cross loading required and the ISB and continue directly into the combat zone.  These new aircraft have been built with the requisite combat redundant systems and capability that allows them to operate in hostile, non permissive environments and to land on dirt strips in austere FOLs.

So Boeing now has the right to advertise its C-17 Globemaster as the new “strategic aircraft with tactical capabilities” or as the new “tactical aircraft with strategic legs”.  It’s all the same and just perhaps a matter of semantics.  The line between the two doctrinal concepts have now been blurred.  The airlifters prefer to call it the C-17 mission the “Direct Delivery Sortie”.  The C-17 can carry large outsized cargo directly from home base to the FOL without any crossloading or switching of cargo.  Or it can airdrop it into the forward DZ.

The times … they are ‘a changin’.


 
Quite a few people have PM'ed me asking about the proposed paint scheme for the CC 177.
While I am not a member of the PMO team, I believe that the artist's conception is shown below of what our aircraft are going to look like.
Apparently that is actually Ottawa below the aircraft ... gotta' love photoshop eh?

CdnC17OverCYOW.jpg
 
That picture brings a tear to my eye Globemasher......

it is a thing of beauty
 
DavidAkin said:
I am pleased to promptly respond when I write something that is less than clear ...  :)

And so:
The CC-177 -- Canada's newest big military toy
http://davidakin.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2007/2/5/2711609.html

And while I'm  here -- let me add my thanks to Globesmasher for all the helpful info about this program ...

Late last year, I interviewed Maj. Jean Maisonneuve about the C-17 acquisition.  Those here who know him know he has flown more than 100 combat missions with the USAF in their C-17s. I got the impression from him that these planes are indeed something else ...

They truly are.

One thing for us to bear in mind is the fact that this site ...
http://davidakin.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2007/2/5/2711609.html

... is Mr Akin's personal blog ... so he can pretty much say what he wishes.
Much like we do here (within bounds of reason of course).
I can't say that I find his coverage derogatory at all.
 
Given the the C-17 flies missions of a strategic nature (eg: taking stuff from 'here' and flying it 'there'), I would call it strat lift with a tactical landing capability.  But, Globesmasher is right: the lines are blurring.  Semantics aside, just call it a Big Honking Plane (or Steve) and realise that when they come online, the Air Force will be able to do stuff it hadn't been able to do before.
 
:army:

Mr Akin:

To start with, the reason why the term “toy” is upsetting to myself and others in my unit that saw your blog, is that for so long the concerns of the military with aging equipment and replacement has been dismissed by many in power or authority.  Successive governments, aided by so-called “think-tanks”, academics, politicians, lobbyists and sun-dry other agenda setters, have belittled the concerns of the armed forces by characterizing them as “toys for boys.”  You, with your headline, have perpetuated this condescending, patronizing stereotype. 

The military does not advocate buying a piece of equipment because we own stock in the company (although that seems to be an angle being played out by the aforementioned agenda setters).  It is because there is an identified need for that piece of equipment to fill.  And this is regardless of country of origin:  the original Maritime Helicopter replacement ordered by the Conservatives, the EH101, was an Anglo-Italian product; the helicopter eventually – after 11 years – ordered by the Liberals, the S92/CH148 Cyclone, is an American product.

I, along with many others on this board, have been witness to the results of this complaisant attitude to military procurement on countless occasions.  For example, the replacement of the Iltis jeep was approved by Treasury Board in 1998 but nothing was done until two soldiers were killed in a mine blast in Afghanistan.  Only then, after the public and media attention, did the government finally order a replacement vehicle.  Other examples off the top of my head – not enough kelvar jackets and helmets to go around in the former Yugoslavia; sending soldiers in temperate forest uniforms to a desert country; the number of broken trucks cannibalized for spare parts to keep others going at the BC forest fires; watching the Dutch ride around Afghanistan in our old Chinook helicopters and having a Dutch pilot thank me for Canada selling them to his country (much gnashing of teeth),etc.

Regarding the effectiveness issue, in addition to comments about the delay in sending the DART unit to Indonesia and Pakistan, in 1999 the air force sent a C130 to assist in the UN operation in East Timor.  This particular C130 took four tries to get out of Vancouver due to successive mechanical breakdowns.  It took three weeks to get to Australia.

As for the comments by the CDS, they speak for themselves: given a choice, he chose.  That’s as far as I am going in parsing the CDS – I may be dumb but I ain’t stupid.

Apologies for misspelling your name.
 
I'd love for the media, or some of them, to actually focus on why the military is forever having to decide which piece of clearly necessary equipment will be acquired and which won't.  Is the military budget adequate?  Are our allies in the same position?  How does military spending in Canada compare?  Here in Canada the military actually receiving new stuff appears to be headline news.  Why is that?
 
MODERATORS NOTE:

The Poster was not BANNED for his posts in this forum, but for creating Multiple Accounts, and not replying to inquiries as to why he had done so.
 
Globesmasher said:
So Boeing now has the right to advertise its C-17 Globemaster as the new “strategic aircraft with tactical capabilities” or as the new “tactical aircraft with strategic legs”.  It’s all the same and just perhaps a matter of semantics.  The line between the two doctrinal concepts have now been blurred.  The airlifters prefer to call it the C-17 mission the “Direct Delivery Sortie”.  The C-17 can carry large outsized cargo directly from home base to the FOL without any crossloading or switching of cargo.  Or it can airdrop it into the forward DZ.

The times … they are ‘a changin’.


Agreed . . .  and  since we have "inter-theatre" distances within our own borders, having fast, big lift is going to a critical to having an Arctic presence, civilian and military. Especially if you are a Believer and expect the Arctic Ocean's ice pack to thaw out and Canada really needs a face presence in the real Great White North.


And calling these "toys" is at best cute, at worst pejorative, but either way a poor choice of an adjective.
 
HDE said:
I'd love for the media, or some of them, to actually focus on why the military is forever having to decide which piece of clearly necessary equipment will be acquired and which won't.  Is the military budget adequate?  Are our allies in the same position?  How does military spending in Canada compare?  Here in Canada the military actually receiving new stuff appears to be headline news.  Why is that?

Well, it is in part due to the fact that, for quite a while now, Canadians have not been placing Defence (or terror/security, et al) at the top of their priorities lists.  Healthcare has been numero 1 for quite a while, being replaced by environment only recently after this spat of wacko weather the world saw in Nov-Dec-Jan. Its still quite high.

Proportionate spending of government funds equates to the equivalent proportions of the most politically expedient spending, and generally falls along poll lines.  Until someone takes a leadership stance and starts convincing Canadians that Defence is a necessity,  we will not join the rest of G8 nations in proportionate spending.

Anecdotally, in speaking with a lot of new Canadians at my last job (call centre manager), a lot of them individually came up to me and stated that one of the things they loved about Canada was that they did not feel like so much of their government was about all things military.  It made them feel safer, in perhaps a way we may not all agree with.

 
Globesmasher said:
Tactical airlift was then referred to as the “intra-theatre airlift” which was the transport of the same men and materiel from the safe ISB to the forward operating locations (FOLs) and austere combat LZes.  The traditional tactical airlifters were the C-160 Transal and the C-130 Hercules to name but a few.  They are much smaller than the strat airlifters, but more capable of operating on dirt strips with combat redundant systems that would allow them to survive in the hostile, non-permissive AOR....
...  Then, they can skip the cross loading required and the ISB and continue directly into the combat zone.  These new aircraft have been built with the requisite combat redundant systems and capability that allows them to operate in hostile, non permissive environments and to land on dirt strips in austere FOLs.

Globesmaster, though you state some interesting generalizations, they may overgeneralize.  The
specs of the tradational tactical lifters and the C-17 are different in key areas.  There are operations,
airfields, and situations where C-17 and the type are not required or cannot land without higher or
unnecessary risk.  The C-130 is a more appropriate airframe in some circumstances the CF finds itself in. 
The tactical and the strategic capability as it relates to airframe still has relevance.  Some older threads
in the forum from the past year have various perspectives regarding tactical and strategic.
 
I agree that politics drive most spending, however there's no reason why it shouldn't be pointed out that Canada is hardly aspiring to be a military hyperpower, rather we can quite reasonably commit resources along the lines of several of our NATO allies without worrying about how excessive it is.  Just once I'd love to see an honest debate about
how our spending actually does compare.  Given how much we do spend it seems reasonable to hope someone in the media would show a little interest in doing a bit of research.  I suppose the issue isn't sexy enough.
 
Respectfully Bert,

Having followed Globesmashers postings on the matter, including the information he posted on his place within the organization, then I think he might be better positioned than most of us who were commenting on the tactical/strategic debate. 

Cheers, Chris.
 
Do we know for a fact that the DART deployment was delayed because Canada could not secure strategic airlift? I was not in Ottawa when the DART was deployed to Sri Lanka after the Asian tsunami but my colleagues believe that the delay in deploying the DART was the inability of political overseers to make a decision about the deployment of the DART. In other words, the three-week delay may not have been a problem of procuring a ride for the DART but may have been due to the time it took the Paul Martin cabinet to make a decision.
In other words, even if Canada at that time owned it owns strategic airlift capability, it may still have taken three weeks for DART to deploy.

Consider this story, written by the Star's Bruce Campion Smith, that appeared in the paper on TUESDAY JAN 4 2005:

-----------------------------
DART flying to heart of disaster; Team heading for Sri Lanka's coast Will deliver medical aid, clean water  

OTTAWA -- Canada's disaster relief team - now packing to head to Sri Lanka to dispense medical care, clean water and help with reconstruction - will remain in the stricken country "for as long as it takes," Defence Minister Bill Graham pledged yesterday.
....
After a week of internal debate, Prime Minister Paul Martin yesterday gave the green light to deploy the military's Disaster Assistance Response Team (DART) to the Ampara region on Sri Lanka's east coast.
....
Two commercially chartered Russian Antonov transport jets will depart Canadian Forces Base in Trenton Thursday night, carrying the first load of equipment and personnel halfway around the globe to the hard-hit island nation.

----------------
So my read of Bruce's story is that on Monday, the Prime Minister told the DART to go and by Thursday it was loading into a leased Antonov. That seems to be a pretty quick turnaround.

I had been transferred to Ottawa by the time the DART was deployed to Pakistan for earthquake assistance and, in fact, stood beside then Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre Pettigrew at CFB Trenton as we watched the (unbelievably huge) Antonov land and the DART equipment load. Pettigrew, CFB PA officers, and others said at the time that the Antonov had been 'ordered' within two or three days of its appearance at Trenton and that obtaining the services of the Antonov in a timely fashion had never been an issue.



 
DavidAkin said:
Do we know for a fact that the DART deployment was delayed because Canada could not secure strategic airlift? I was not in Ottawa when the DART was deployed to Sri Lanka after the Asian tsunami but my colleagues believe that the delay in deploying the DART was the inability of political overseers to make a decision about the deployment of the DART. In other words, the three-week delay may not have been a problem of procuring a ride for the DART but may have been due to the time it took the Paul Martin cabinet to make a decision.
In other words, even if Canada at that time owned it owns strategic airlift capability, it may still have taken three weeks for DART to deploy.

Consider this story, written by the Star's Bruce Campion Smith, that appeared in the paper on TUESDAY JAN 4 2005:

-----------------------------
DART flying to heart of disaster; Team heading for Sri Lanka's coast Will deliver medical aid, clean water  

OTTAWA -- Canada's disaster relief team - now packing to head to Sri Lanka to dispense medical care, clean water and help with reconstruction - will remain in the stricken country "for as long as it takes," Defence Minister Bill Graham pledged yesterday.
....
After a week of internal debate, Prime Minister Paul Martin yesterday gave the green light to deploy the military's Disaster Assistance Response Team (DART) to the Ampara region on Sri Lanka's east coast.
....
Two commercially chartered Russian Antonov transport jets will depart Canadian Forces Base in Trenton Thursday night, carrying the first load of equipment and personnel halfway around the globe to the hard-hit island nation.

----------------
So my read of Bruce's story is that on Monday, the Prime Minister told the DART to go and by Thursday it was loading into a leased Antonov. That seems to be a pretty quick turnaround.

I had been transferred to Ottawa by the time the DART was deployed to Pakistan for earthquake assistance and, in fact, stood beside then Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre Pettigrew at CFB Trenton as we watched the (unbelievably huge) Antonov land and the DART equipment load. Pettigrew, CFB PA officers, and others said at the time that the Antonov had been 'ordered' within two or three days of its appearance at Trenton and that obtaining the services of the Antonov in a timely fashion had never been an issue.

Another issue with the Anatov's is that they are getting old and there servicability may become a concern, (other Air Force folks should be able to give more details). Finally has anyone done the cost analysis of leasing vs owning? I know of many folks who have been burnt badly leasing cars, (a poor example but an example nontheless).
Have a good day Mr. Akin, you are a journalist that does his homework.

cheers
 
Antonov tipe of leasing in our case has been more like renting a car for the weekend from Antonov rent-a-plane.  Not the same thing.

Leasing a C17 from Boeing would signify that you would pay a bundle up front, face all sorts of restrictions (it's not your plane) and be faced with all sorts of conditions at lease renewal time.  The RAF started off their C17 ownership with leases - they are now going to buy outright.
 
Just to reinforce my point, an excerpt from a column by Chantal Hébert in the Toronto Star, Feb. 5:
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/article/177724

The Liberal take on the Boeing contract is that it amounts to extravagant toy-buying.

Mark
Ottawa
 
Bert said:
Globesmaster, though you state some interesting generalizations, they may overgeneralize.  The
specs of the tradational tactical lifters and the C-17 are different in key areas.  There are operations,
airfields, and situations where C-17 and the type are not required or cannot land without higher or
unnecessary risk.  The C-130 is a more appropriate airframe in some circumstances the CF finds itself in. 
The tactical and the strategic capability as it relates to airframe still has relevance.  Some older threads
in the forum from the past year have various perspectives regarding tactical and strategic.

I appreciate the discussion ...

You are correct to a point Bert, and my submission about strategic vs tactical airlift may at first appear to be an over-generalization.  It is difficult to relate to such a subject and keep it small and interesting for the reader on the forum.  :boring:  The subject is in fact huge and beyond the scope of the thread or the forum.

Since its inception, and since we have a manpower shortage in the pilot trade, I have been helping CF AWC (on and off) at 8 Wing Trenton address and rewrite our old and outdated Airlift Doctrine.  Believe it or not, this issue has not been revisited since 1990.  That is the latest copy or rendition of anything that resembles "TAL doctrine".  We've never actually had any "Strat doctrine" but we have always been collectively quoting from the American "Strategic vs Tactical Airlift" / "Inter versus Intra theatre Airlift" paradigm.

Establishments such as CF AWC are long overdue ... hopefully we'll have some decent doctrine to go from in the not too distant future.  This will be a first for us ..... shocking as that may seem.

You are correct in that the employment and use of either a C-130 or a C-17 into a certain combat FOL is very much determined based on the actual situation, threat assessment and airfield conditions.  This is why each TALCE has a planning staff and someone who makes the determination.  But now, Self Protection Suite (SPS) technology has meant that the threat situation and assessment really have very little to do with which aircraft to employ.  They are both equally well equipped to defend themselves in the SA, AAA & EW spectrum.  It really boils down to what kind (size) of FOL are we dealing with.

Whilst I have been astounded at the eye-watering performance of the C-17 and it's ability to land (being 3.5 times larger than the C-130) fully loaded on austere runways 3500' x 90', I must also remember that the C-130 can operate on 3000' x 60' under the same circumstances.  The C-130 will always be "THE quintessential tactical airlifter" in my mind.  But it will never be, and can never be, a strategic airlifter by any definition.  And now the C-17 is encroaching on the realm of operations that have been heretofore "Hercules only".

Exposure to risk ... good argument.  What if we had 18 pallets of vitally needed ammunition to deliver to a forward LZ that was 3500' x 90'.  Do you, as the TALCE Commander, want to expose 1 x C-17 once to the risk to deliver that entire load .... or do you want to expose 1 x C-130 4 times (or 4 Hercs once each) to the same risk as it tries to deliver the same quantity of load?  If the LZ is smaller than those dimensions, then the debate is moot and there is really only one aircraft that can do the job (although it will take 4 sorties).

The one issue that is now completely derailing the discussion on "strat vs tact" is the new, modern equipment that the army is using.  Let's look at the LAV lll for example.  To me, this appears to be the backbone of mounted infantry operations and the requirement for this robust AFV will always in predominant in current and near-future operations.  Years from now I see the "LAV lV" (or whatever the next generation AFV is) as being even bigger, even heavier as it develops and employs technological counter measures against whatever weapon has been designed to deafeat it.  Bearing that in mind, the C-130 cannot currently carry a fully configured LAV lll (ready to drive off and fight), and it never will even if it stays the same size as the AFV eveloves and develop es .... and future AFVs will not fit either.  So now it is "equipment" that is driving what type of airlift we employ to get "the kit to the fight" for the army.  It is not longer the nature of the operation or the risk assessment.  The C-17 is as robust (in fact more so) than the C-130 E/H and is equally as well defended as the C-130J with it defensive suite.  The threat is no longer really the driving issue when it comes to airlift aircraft employment in a given circumstance.

The one thing to bear in mind with the C-130J - it is only the cockpit, avionics and engines that have been redesigned.  The cargo compartment, while it has an upgraded cargo handling system, is the same size as the venerable E and the H, be it a stubby or a stretch J.  The Lav lll does not fit in the C-130 E or H and it will not fit in the C-130 J, or the K or the L or the M, N, O , P .... (you get the picture) or whatever model they come up with until Lockheed enlarges the cargo compartment.  By then, it will no longer be called the C-130 anymore but something else ...... they are already designing the future "AMC-X" for the 2020 timeframe.  The fact that Airbus has the A400M is also indicative of the "new airlift paradigm".

So now, decisions on which aircraft a TALCE Commander is to employ in a certain situation is longer driven by the threat scenario, but more by which aircraft can actually take the required cargo into the target objective.

New technology, both equipment required by the army in modern conflicts, and new aircraft to carry that new equipment, have now made the "strat vs tact" discussion almost moot.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top