Canada and the C-17

rotateandfly · Post by **rotateandfly** » Tue Apr 10, 2007 2:50 pm

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1197088/M/

Any questions?

or should I say "fun, anyone?"

sigmet77 · Post by **sigmet77** » Wed Apr 11, 2007 4:57 am

That's the shit, now let's get a Canada flag on that puppy and get to work.

rotateandfly · Post by **rotateandfly** » Wed Apr 11, 2007 6:00 am

and get to work

..doing what again??

just kidding.

Old fella · Post by **Old fella** » Wed Apr 11, 2007 8:04 am

A colossal waste of 3B tax payer dollars

app flap · Post by **app flap** » Wed Apr 11, 2007 8:38 am

thanks for your new and thought inspiring opinion!

Beacon Final · Post by **Beacon Final** » Wed Apr 11, 2007 8:42 am

Old Fella said:

A colossal waste of 3B tax payer dollars

I would have to say you are wrong. Canada needs heavy life aircraft more than anything else. Just read the first chapter of "Who's war is it" and you will see what I mean.

BF

lawndart · Post by **lawndart** » Wed Apr 11, 2007 9:14 am

Interesting (but now academic) argument for long term leasing of AN-124 instead of buying C-17's

http://www.sfu.ca/casr/id-antonov-1.htm

CLguy · Post by **CLguy** » Wed Apr 11, 2007 9:35 am

I'll take the Boeing thanks! At least you can be assured of a parts supply and quality support.

Was in Trenton a few weeks ago and saw an Antinov loading for a trip overseas. I'd say it is about time we give our military the equipment they need instead of relying on foreign governments. Besides the government would just piss away the money on some other useless boonedoggle such as the HRDC scandle, Gun Control waste and the Sponsorship scandle. Just these three alone would of more than covered the cost.

the_professor · Post by **the_professor** » Wed Apr 11, 2007 9:43 am

Leasing airlift capacity is bush league and embarrassing, and it's about time our military got their own stuff. We shouldn't need to rely on the availability of rental equipment, as we have for so long, when it comes to moving our stuff around.

mellow_pilot · Post by **mellow_pilot** » Wed Apr 11, 2007 9:43 am

lawndart wrote:Interesting (but now academic) argument for long term leasing of AN-124 instead of buying C-17's

http://www.sfu.ca/casr/id-antonov-1.htm

Ah yes, more genius from the folks at SFU...

Seriously, most anything these guys say with regards to defence is pure tripe.

CYOX · Post by **CYOX** » Wed Apr 11, 2007 9:45 am

I don't see the comparison that interesting at all, no where within the study does he talk about field length, when the more detailed study hit the DND, the first thing that became apparent is that you would need a 10,000 foot runway for the AN 124 or a 7,500 foot runway for a 75 Tonne load. That required the CF to beg the USAF for a C-17 to move our assets to the operational theater.

This document was made to protect Skylinks favored position within the DND where they control about 98% of the charters that DND perform. We should be getting the C-17 so our Tactical/Strategic airlift is not controlled by some yahoos out of Toronto.

Localizer · Post by **Localizer** » Wed Apr 11, 2007 3:14 pm

Like CLguy said ... Our country waste crap loads of cash in other areas that mean nothing. Its time that our troops, (all tax payers by the way) get some new gear that keeps them safe and doing there jobs. Maybe you should look at other programs for cost savings.