A decent Canadian Purchase! (CC-117)

[SAR_YQQ]

CC-177 can max out payload at 170,000 lbs which is close to 85 tonnes.

There is zero difference between the CC-177 and the USAFs C-17.

[WJflyer]

on Thursday 23rd Aug.) of the aircraft to the very first actual operational mission, flying 30 tonnes of aid to Jamaica, non-stop to and back without refueling.


Multiple loads can be reduced to one. For example, we can fly DART's equipment to anywhere in the world in just 1 lift, rather than 20+ Herc flights.

It is a great aircraft but it is not that big, the Herc will carry 20 tonnes, so they got an extra 10 tonnes of freight on the C-17. The DART cargo that went to Sri Lanka would have fit into 8 Hercs.

The thing is that a Herc can't fly very far at full cargo load... C-17 can travel pretty far...

[twinpratts]

She's a thing of beauty.

(to answer your Q... the only diffrence is Daytime running lites, and a spedometer in Klicks ).

[32a]

http://start.shaw.ca/start/enCA/News/Wo ... 82990A.xml

Canadian C-17's first landing smooth and with little fanfare in Kandahar
at 20:58 on August 29, 2007, EST. By MARTIN OUELLET

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan (CP) - In the pitch darkness of night, the Canadian military's new C-17 transport plane touched down softly at Kandahar Military Airport on Wednesday in southern Afghanistan. The pilots landed the giant carrier with its lights extinguished, guided solely by night-vision goggles. "We took a tactical approach with the night-vision goggles, with the airplane lights turned off, with the engines idling," said Maj. Jean Maisonneuve, chief check pilot at 429 Transport Squadron, 8 Wing, in Trenton, Ont. "In a way, we're sort of pioneers."

The gigantic, 200-tonne bird of steel is expected to have an effect on Canadian troop confidence as they continue to battle with Taliban insurgents, Maisonneuve said in a short interview shortly after landing. "This plane will have a positive impact on the morale of the troops. Speaking with my colleagues, I can tell you that everyone is happy to know that we have modern tools at our disposal and a better (transport) capacity than before," he said.

The C-17, a four-engine military transport plane built by Boeing, is phenomenal. It is a little more than 52 metres long, seven metres wide and has a 52-metre wingspan. The inside is about 16 metres tall. The new planes can carry four-times the amount of cargo of the Hercules C-130 transport planes, formerly the largest planes in the Canadian fleet. The C-17s are designed to replace some of the aging Hercules fleet. The C-17s can also travel twice as fast, reaching up to 80 per cent of the speed of sound, and have a cruising speed of 1,000 kilometres an hour. In its giant belly, the plane can carry 77,000 tonnes of cargo, including vehicles, and can transport up to 100 soldiers. "We could say that a C-17 is capable of doing the work of six Hercules," Maisonneuve said.

The planes have not come without their controversy and certainly didn't come cheap. In total, the four planes purchased by the Canadian government will cost about $3.4 billion, a bill that caused a tremendous political upheaval in the House of Commons. Former defence minister Gordon O'Connor justified the purchase of the four planes as they would make it easier to transport large quantities of materials for humanitarian missions abroad in the future, as well as help at home.

Last week, the C-17 made its inaugural flight by transporting aid equipment to Jamaica to help in the aftermath of hurricane Dean. But on Wednesday, the giant grey-blue plane's delivery to Kandahar included 35,000 kilograms of equipment destined for Canadian troops. It was scheduled to depart for Canada just a few hours after landing.

The second C-17 purchased by Canada is slated to arrive in November 2007 and two others in the spring of 2008.

©The Canadian Press, 2007 [/b]

[Goose757]

The planes have not come without their controversy and certainly didn't come cheap. In total, the four planes purchased by the Canadian government will cost about $3.4 billion, a bill that caused a tremendous political upheaval in the House of Commons. Former defence minister Gordon O'Connor justified the purchase of the four planes as they would make it easier to transport large quantities of materials for humanitarian missions abroad in the future, as well as help at home.

$3.4B!?!?!? What do we get for that price?

Amazing aircraft though. Nice to see it in Canadian military colours.

[the_professor]

No, it is not. Once it wears Canadian colors, it is a CC-177. It is the way the armed forces hase been doing things for years, and it will not likely change.

"We've always done it this way" <-- worst possible rationalization for any action, whether its the technique for washing windows or naming aircraft.

It's a bit self-important for us to believe that our 4 C-17s were modified enough as compared the 180-odd already produced to merit a name/model change.

Having "Canada" painted on the side doesn't change the fact that what we are flying is the C-17.

[Guido]

http://start.shaw.ca/start/enCA/News/Wo ... 82990A.xml

In its giant belly, the plane can carry 77,000 tonnes of cargo...

Nice. It can carry this beauty, plus a bit more:



Man... I hate reporters.

[C-GGGQ]

The planes have not come without their controversy and certainly didn't come cheap. In total, the four planes purchased by the Canadian government will cost about $3.4 billion, a bill that caused a tremendous political upheaval in the House of Commons. Former defence minister Gordon O'Connor justified the purchase of the four planes as they would make it easier to transport large quantities of materials for humanitarian missions abroad in the future, as well as help at home.

$3.4B!?!?!? What do we get for that price?

Amazing aircraft though. Nice to see it in Canadian military colours.

4 aircraft and i believe 20 years of maintenance

[Goose757]

The planes have not come without their controversy and certainly didn't come cheap. In total, the four planes purchased by the Canadian government will cost about $3.4 billion, a bill that caused a tremendous political upheaval in the House of Commons. Former defence minister Gordon O'Connor justified the purchase of the four planes as they would make it easier to transport large quantities of materials for humanitarian missions abroad in the future, as well as help at home.

$3.4B!?!?!? What do we get for that price?

Amazing aircraft though. Nice to see it in Canadian military colours.

4 aircraft and i believe 20 years of maintenance

Ah. I was guessing that a maintenance contract was involved. Thanks for the info.

[TheCheez]

Yeah media always forgets the rest of the contract. Its far more outrageous if the public thinks the goverment pork barrled $1 000 000 000 for just an aircraft.

[WJflyer]

$3.4B!?!?!? What do we get for that price?

Amazing aircraft though. Nice to see it in Canadian military colours.

4 aircraft and i believe 20 years of maintenance

Ah. I was guessing that a maintenance contract was involved. Thanks for the info.

The sale included:
18 Pratt & Whitney F117-PW-100 engines
4 AN/AAQ-24v13 LAIRCM (Large Aircraft Infrared Countermeasures) Systems
20 AN/AVS-9 Night Vision Goggles
Electronic Combat International Security Assistance Program software equipment
Mission planning system and software
COMSEC equipment
Spare and repair parts
Personnel Life Support equipment
flares, supply support, training equipment and support, publications and technical data, U.S. Government and contractor technical assistance, and other related elements of logistics support.
Membership in the Boeing C-17 Globemaster III Sustainment Partnership (GSP)

The last one is especially nice. What the GSP means for us is that if we break down anywhere in the world, there is no need for us to load up another airplane with parts, equipment, tools, and personnel to go out and fix the airplane. Boeing will instead provide the tools, parts, equipment, and the technicians to fix the airplane for us. It also means for us that we will continuously upgrade our C-17's in step with the USAF as new software and hardware updates become available. No more flying airplanes who's avionics are out of date by 20 years for us

[C-GGGQ]

and here i thought i knew everything yeah its a pretty decent deal for once

[yultoto]

Canada's C-177 is rigged for the in flight refuelling gear but does not actually have it installed. Not in flight refuelling will be done by Canada with this aircraft

[yultoto]

Does anyone know when our new C-177 will be flying our new tanks to Kandahar? The first one arrived there inside an An-124 almost a month ago, and no word on the other 19 tanks. When and how will they be arriving in Kandahar is the million dollar question?

See http://boeingc17.blogspot.com/2007/09/w ... tanks.html

[linecrew]

Having "Canada" painted on the side doesn't change the fact that what we are flying is the C-17.

So then the CP-140 Auroras in Canadian service should just be called the P-3 Orion? Why can't the aircraft be integrated in to the standard naming process...in your eyes does it lose something when the name is made Canadian-ized?

I think it's cool that by hearing the name you instantly know exactly what type it is and that it's owned and operated by Canada.

[the_professor]

Having "Canada" painted on the side doesn't change the fact that what we are flying is the C-17.

So then the CP-140 Auroras in Canadian service should just be called the P-3 Orion? Why can't the aircraft be integrated in to the standard naming process...in your eyes does it lose something when the name is made Canadian-ized?

I think it's cool that by hearing the name you instantly know exactly what type it is and that it's owned and operated by Canada.

Are the P-3 and CP-140 different aircraft? Not to my knowledge. If they're not different aircraft, then don't give them different names.

[GilletteNorth]

Deleted as information already posted

[Dash-Ate]

Ah. I was guessing that a maintenance contract was involved. Thanks for the info.

The sale included:
18 Pratt & Whitney F117-PW-100 engines
4 AN/AAQ-24v13 LAIRCM (Large Aircraft Infrared Countermeasures) Systems
20 AN/AVS-9 Night Vision Goggles
Electronic Combat International Security Assistance Program software equipment
Mission planning system and software
COMSEC equipment
Spare and repair parts
Personnel Life Support equipment
flares, supply support, training equipment and support, publications and technical data, U.S. Government and contractor technical assistance, and other related elements of logistics support.
Membership in the Boeing C-17 Globemaster III Sustainment Partnership (GSP)

The last one is especially nice. What the GSP means for us is that if we break down anywhere in the world, there is no need for us to load up another airplane with parts, equipment, tools, and personnel to go out and fix the airplane. Boeing will instead provide the tools, parts, equipment, and the technicians to fix the airplane for us. It also means for us that we will continuously upgrade our C-17's in step with the USAF as new software and hardware updates become available. No more flying airplanes who's avionics are out of date by 20 years for us

YES BUT DID THEY GET THE RUSTPROOFING?

[Spokes]

Having "Canada" painted on the side doesn't change the fact that what we are flying is the C-17.

So then the CP-140 Auroras in Canadian service should just be called the P-3 Orion? Why can't the aircraft be integrated in to the standard naming process...in your eyes does it lose something when the name is made Canadian-ized?

I think it's cool that by hearing the name you instantly know exactly what type it is and that it's owned and operated by Canada.

Are the P-3 and CP-140 different aircraft? Not to my knowledge. If they're not different aircraft, then don't give them different names.

Yes they are very much different from each other. The only thing they share in common is the same basic airframe. It stops there. Think cramming 2 S-3 Vikings into a P-3 airframe. That and a few other things make the CP-140 Aurora an aircraft unique in the world.

My question is why are there always so many people who think they know better?

[WJflyer]

So then the CP-140 Auroras in Canadian service should just be called the P-3 Orion? Why can't the aircraft be integrated in to the standard naming process...in your eyes does it lose something when the name is made Canadian-ized?

I think it's cool that by hearing the name you instantly know exactly what type it is and that it's owned and operated by Canada.

Are the P-3 and CP-140 different aircraft? Not to my knowledge. If they're not different aircraft, then don't give them different names.

Yes they are very much different from each other. The only thing they share in common is the same basic airframe. It stops there. Think cramming 2 S-3 Vikings into a P-3 airframe. That and a few other things make the CP-140 Aurora an aircraft unique in the world.

My question is why are there always so many people who think they know better?

And that uniqueness is what gets us trouble when it comes to getting attrition replacements or overhauls... with such a small unique fleet, updating can be a big pain in the ass. Hence we are aiming at buying off the shelf equipment that require minimal modifications.

CF C-17's are virtually identical to USAF, RAAF, and RAF C-17's. Nothing special about them besides the markings. This allows us to join the global C-17 'virtual' fleet. This allows shared maintenance and repairs anywhere around the world, even if we do not have people where a CF C-17 lands. It also means that the DND has committed itself to, as I said before, to continuously update our C-17's in step with our allies, as they are rolled onto the virtual fleet.

This has been an extremely good purchase for the DND. From start to finish, everything has gone smoothly, quickly, and without a hitch. This is probably a very good example of how DND procurement is supposed to work; it is supposed to deliver a solid, quality piece of equipment quickly and effortlessly, without pain. Thanks Stephen Harper for giving us something that we actually wanted and works right from the get go!

[conehead]

There is a "down" side to this deal though. By purchasing the Maintenance agreement, we lose an enormous opportunity for Canadian boys and girls to learn and practice skills in Aircraft Maintenance. The vast amount of this work will now be done by Boeing employees. Yes, they do a fine job. Yes, they will fly in anywhere in the world and fix your broken aircraft. I have seen them in action, they are awesome. But they are not a bunch of keen young Canadians (like the group I was once part of) and I think we are losing something very valuable there.

[WJflyer]

There is a "down" side to this deal though. By purchasing the Maintenance agreement, we lose an enormous opportunity for Canadian boys and girls to learn and practice skills in Aircraft Maintenance. The vast amount of this work will now be done by Boeing employees. Yes, they do a fine job. Yes, they will fly in anywhere in the world and fix your broken aircraft. I have seen them in action, they are awesome. But they are not a bunch of keen young Canadians (like the group I was once part of) and I think we are losing something very valuable there.

We actually have some maintainers go down to the states to train with USAF C-17 maintainers. In short, we are going to follow the USAF style of maintenance with the C-17's, in that if the birds need something minor servicing in Canada, we can do it ourselves. That means anything from a wheel change to a engine swap. Anything more extensive, it goes straight to Boeing.

Besides, remember, the CF is having a major personnel crunch right now, especially in the various trades. Such people will be shuffled onto other types to flesh out the numbers. I know the Herc and the Buff AME's need more people, due to the current implosion of the CF C-130 fleet, and the low availability of the Buffs for West Coast SAR work. There's just not a large enough C-17 fleet for us to do our own work; its too expensive for only a handful of airplanes.

Also, new projects are online for the new types we hope to introduce soon into CF service. Specifically, its the C-130J (the currently selected aircraft of the ACP-T RFP, with contract to be signed this winter 2007, and with first delivery in 2010, for a total of 17 tails), FWSAR (15 tails, contenders C-27J Spartan and C-295, favourite is C-27J), MHLH, (16 frames, selected is CH-47 Chinook), and CH-148 Cyclone (28 frames). There will be a lot of work for CF AME's in the future, that can be guaranteed.

[yultoto]

There is a "down" side to this deal though. By purchasing the Maintenance agreement, we lose an enormous opportunity for Canadian boys and girls to learn and practice skills in Aircraft Maintenance. The vast amount of this work will now be done by Boeing employees. Yes, they do a fine job. Yes, they will fly in anywhere in the world and fix your broken aircraft. I have seen them in action, they are awesome. But they are not a bunch of keen young Canadians (like the group I was once part of) and I think we are losing something very valuable there.

You are correct there. The maintainers for the C-17 and all the other purchases the CF will make in the US (CH-47, C-130J etc) will have to be "ITAR" compliant. Because Canadian firms that would get such contracts cannot legally fire all their Canadian citizen employee that are not "ITAR compliant" (those born in Cuba, Syria, Venezuela, Haiti and some other 20 countries on the list), nor can they selectively hire new employee based on country of birth, it is easier, legally, for the CF to give out the contracts single source to US based firms who are automatically "ITAR compliant" because every US citizen is, regardless of where he is born.

Hiring or firing Canadians based on country of birth is illegal in Canada. So there is no way a Canadian company could have obtained the C-17 maintenance contract. It is an ITAR controlled kit.

CAE in Montreal got in trouble for posting a "Help Wanted" add for "ITAR compliant" employee to do a US military contract ("ITAR compliant" means "people born in the following countries need not apply, even if they are Canadian citizens") GM lost a court case for firing non-ITAR compliant employees so they could accept some US military contracts that required ITAR compliance (LAVs I think) and Bell Helicopters in Montreal may suffer the same fate for "relocating" non-ITAR compliant employees.

US citizens, regardless of where they are born, are automatically "ITAR compliant", so expect to see a lot of US firms getting CF maintenance contracts in the future, because that list of non-ITAR compliant countries grows every year, each time there is a government somewhere in the world the US is not happy about. Most of South America may be there very soon.

In 2007 the Harper government negociated a deal with the US where Canadian government employees are automatically ITAR compliant. Thanks to that agreement, our Head of State and symbolic head of the CF, the Honorable Michaelle Jean, became ITAR compliant. She was not before that agreement. However, civilian employees of Candian firms who may have contracts with the CF to maintain ITAR controlled items have to continue to meet ITAR regulations, meaning people born in that list of ove 20 countries cannot touch, operate, maintain any ITAR controlled hardware of software.

I wrote at least four articles about this on my Blog:

http://boeingc17.blogspot.com/2007/01/i ... -arms.html

http://boeingc17.blogspot.com/2007/02/help-wanted.html

http://boeingc17.blogspot.com/2007/03/c ... n-and.html

http://boeingc17.blogspot.com/2007/05/t ... es-to.html

[conehead]

remember, the CF is having a major personnel crunch right now, especially in the various trades. .

Yes, I am aware of that. An old friend is running a Maintenance crew in Cold Lake, and has a big problem with current qualifications.... same is true on every airbase....

I know that the Conservatives are trying to get the most bang for our buck, and this deal was a very effective way to get the new metal in our hands as soon as possible. Perhaps I am only lamenting for the lost past, the old days gone by....

[conehead]

CAE in Montreal got in trouble for posting a "Help Wanted" add for "ITAR compliant" employee to do a US military contract (that means people born in the following countries need not apply, even if they are Canadian citizens) GM lost a court case for firing non-ITAR compliant employees for doing some US military contracts and Bell Helicopters in Montreal is about to have the same fate for "relocating" non-ITAR complinat employees.

Yultoto; very interesting! I wasn't aware of this, and I'm sure I've seen job postings from other companies in Canada stating the ITAR compliant prerequisite. Specifically Spar in Edmonton perhaps? L3?