Not that I'm taking a triumphalist turn or anything, but I note this morning that, despite the press release from the federal government trumpeting the fact that Canada's fresh new C-17 fleet was just the tool we needed to help in places like Burma, our fresh new C-17 fleet was not able to do so. My friends Daniel and Steven have the details this morning. As a result, we turned to the Russians, as we often have in the past, to get our aid where it had to go on time and they were able to respond, as they often have in the past, as fast as if we owned the plane ourselves.
Now I was lucky enough to get a ride on Canada's first C-17 the day it landed at CFB Trenton; I've talked to Canadian C-17 pilots and crews and I agree with them: It's a magnificent machine. But when a country like ours has scarce resources and lots of pressing needs, you would think military equipment purchases would be justified according to priority scheme that might look like this: 1. Failure to buy puts Canadian lives in dangers; 2. Failure to buy prevents CF members from completing missions; 3. Buying enhances or extends capabilities.
So far as I know, no one has yet identified one instance where we were unable to rent rides to get our gear where it needed to go on time.* In other words, had we not bought C-17s, no Canadian lives were in danger nor was the CF unable to carry out assigned missions. Owning them does extend and enhance our capability. But can we “rent” search-and-rescue capability? Nope. And failure to own this kit can put Canadian lives in jeopardy. Can we “rent” long-range surveillance aircraft? Nope. And, I know the Air Force has announced a program of upgrades but a failure to provide for their replacment jeopardizes the CF's ability to complete this mission. That's why I wonder, wouldn't the money spent on C-17s have been better spent on capabilities where old, outdated equipment is in danger of imperiling lives and missions?
* Many defenders of the C-17 purchase say Canada's DART team was delayed getting to southeast Asia after the 2004 tsunami. Not true. The delay was the result of political dithering by the PM who would come to wear that moniker. Martin's cabinet made the decision to send the DART on a Sunday night; a plane was rented to take it overseas; and the DART team took off from CFB Trenton on a Thursday.
Yeah, but a C-17 is BIG! Really, REALLY big! We need lots of really big planes and guns, and some of those bombs that can blow up a whole town. Ooh, and some of those way cool guided missiles that you can steer like in that video game! Yeah!
Those guys won't be laughing at us and kicking sand in our faces then, that's for sure.
Mr Akin: search and rescue can be rented:
“Australia provides a model for ASD-style SAR. Like the CF, the RAAF was responsible for SAR in the past. RAAF aircraft still assist with SAR, but the key FWSAR type is the Bombardier Q200 ( Dash-8 ) with maritime search radar and electro-optical sensors. These aircraft are owned by the Coastwatch (a division of the Australian Customs Service) but operated and maintained, under contract, by private contractors. This arrangement allows Australia to control the aircraft and determine its sensor suite, but the mixed fleet of modified Dash-8-200/-300 series aircraft are operated by the successful bidder (currently NAS) for a 12 year contract.”
And much maritime surveillance of considerable distance can either be rented or at least civilian:
“A civilian maritime patrol aircraft fleet?”
You also wrote:
“That's why I wonder, wouldn't the money spent on C-17s have been better spent on capabilities where old, outdated equipment is in danger of imperiling lives and missions?”
That's a fair description of what might happen if our small remaining fleet of more-modern Hercs has to continue doing the main job of flying equipment for Afstan. The C-17s will take on most of this job letting the Hercs concentrate on tactical, not strategic, lift.
The DART role was essentially just PR to gain support for getting the C-17s. But they could well be vital in the case of a major natural disaster in Canada. During the 1998 ice storm the USAF provided strategic lift for supplies within Canada, as well as from the US.
If C-17s are such a luxury why have the UK and Australia also bought them, and why is NATO on the verge of doing so?
Mark
Ottawa
Thanks for this Mark. Helpful information, as usual. I think you overstate my case, mind you, by suggesting I think the C-17s are a luxury. I don't think they are a luxury but I, and others who know much more about this than I do, could reasonably make the case that purchase of C-17s was a lower priority than other equipment needs.
Also: I think we both agree — as Hillier himself has said on several occasions — that you can't rent assets, like Hercs, that are going into war zones. Now I don't know this — maybe you or others might — but would it be reasonable to assume that a patrol aircraft might not also be exposed to risks that would make renting a bit difficult?
Mr Akin: Thanks for the reply. Patrol aircraft for many missions. e.g. fisheries patrol, ship identification, arctic surveillance (a part of what the Auroras do)–whether rented or owned by the civil side of government–are not especially at risk. The point I was trying to make a The Torch post was that Canada might do more of this–as many other countries do.
Mark
Ottawa
If you managed to obtain Russian aircraft this time, it doesn't always mean it will be the case. It seems you signed a contract before the World Food Program, for example (or maybe you outbid them?):
http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/Fitzgibbontpl.cfm?CurrentId=7765
The Australian Government has directed the Australian Defence Force to respond to a request for assistance from the United Nations World Food Programme to transport helicopters from South Africa to Thailand.
The helicopters will be used to transport vital aid and humanitarian assistance into remote cyclone-affected areas of Burma.
“The Australian Government did not hesitate to support a World Food Program request to assist with their current humanitarian operation into Burma,” said Minister for Defence Joel Fitzgibbon.
“A Royal Australian Air Force C-17 Globemaster is now being prepared to travel to South Africa where it will transport helicopters from Johannesburg to Bangkok to assist in the international relief effort.”
“The World Food Program requested immediate support from a small number of countries as commercial aircraft were not available in a suitable timeframe.”
Another possibility occurred to me. Perhaps standing contracts like SALIS ensure the signatories, like Canada, get first pick at the Russian aircraft. The question is then whether this is actually the outcome that best suits certain circumstances (effectively holding out smaller outfits/countries like WFP).
Please don't take that as a criticism. Just a consideration, that's all.
We bough them so we could be a strong, independent country.
Planes need maintenance and are on assignment…..Unplanned natural disasters don't check to see the maintenance/upgrade schedule of planes before they strike.
But keep up the biased good work dave, you are a hero to your liberal colleagues.
Hello David,
What exactly are these aircraft going to do when the Afghan mission winds down? What use will Canada have of 4 aircraft of 72 tonne payload? They will just be parked in Trenton looking for excuses to fly and hoping for some distant disaster to occur to give them that excuse. To keep the pilots current, they will fly around with Hercules loads, and do destructive Touch-and-Goes in Trenton.
Look at the magnitude to of the two disasters that just occurred in Burma and China. They so far have justified just one single C-17 flight to Thailand, that departed 12 days after the cyclone hit. The C-17 took three days to get there, and the aircraft broke down on arrival.
We also claimed we needed the C-17 to help supply Alert in the Arctic. Well we have re-supplied Alert twice since the C-17s arrived and it was not involved in that operation. We in fact had to rent Alaska-based civilian Hercules to help out. I am quite certain a C-17 cannot land in Alert unless the runway is upgraded first.
We claimed we needed them to help with disaster relief in Canada. Well we had a case recently where hundreds of residents had to be evacuated from three James Bay communities. They used two Hercules and several helicopters. The C-17 was not involved in that operation because in fact it cannot land in the 3,900 foot and 3,500 foot gravel runways that service these communities, contrarily to what the military claims that aircraft can do. Unlike what they told the press about being able to land in 900 meters, or in 3500 foot unsurfaced runways etc, no community in Canada with a unsurfaced runway will ever see and C-17 land there, and only those with hard surfaced runways of at least 5000 feet will ever see one, if the surface is hard enough, which is not the case of most communities. And again, this will also require dry runways, clear of ice or snow, because as it was stated in a US GAO report, demonstrated that this aircraft's landing performance decreases tremendously with wet or contaminated runways. Yet this is Canada, not Saudi Arabia. Most of our runways are often wet or contaminated. Which lead to the question: what communities in Canada can really accommodate a loaded C-17 in real life conditions? Not many more than the CC-150 Polaris or than the Il-76, or even the An-124. Yet back in April 2006, when the drums were beating to justify this folly, we had journalists writing DND-fed nonsense like this Michael Den Tandt Globe and Mail article published on April 21 2006:
“The requirements (Air Force requirements for the Strategic Aircraft) would state that the aircraft must also have tactical or short-haul capability, which the C-17 does, to ease pressure on the badly outdated Hercules fleet. That requirement would rule out the Russian-built Antonov, which the Canadian military has rented to deploy its Disaster Assistance Response Team. Unlike the C-17, which can land on rough runways as short as 900 metres, the Antonov requires 3,000 metres of paved strip.”
Now you never hear about landing C-17s on short unpaved runways anymore.
Here is another such argument a DND person sent to me back in 2006 when I first started opposing this purchase:
An ignored factor and pretty big one, being left out of many articles on the C-17 and Strategic Airlifter Comparisons, is the runway takeoff length. With the purchase of a new lifter, how many Canadian airports can the different lifters can land at?
Airports – with paved runways: total: 508
over 3,047 m: 18
2,438 to 3,047 m: 15
1,524 to 2,437 m: 151
914 to 1,523 m: 247
under 914 m: 77
Airports – with unpaved runways: total: 823
1,524 to 2,437 m: 66
914 to 1,523 m: 351
under 914 m: 406
Aircraft Runway Take off Length % of CDN Airports
C-17 1,064 m 51.089%
Without stating which ones, it stated that the C-17 could land at 51% of the 1331 runways listed above which is about 678 runways. In reality, I don't think the CF will risk their machines on more than 150 runways in Canada.
These same lies were used by the US Air Force when they were in the process of purchasing the C-17 for the US Air Force, lies that were uncovered by the US GAO, their equivalent of the Auditor General. Here is that report:
http://archive.gao.gov/t2pbat3/152088.pdf
It worked in the US, the method was repeated in Canada despite this US 1994 GOA report.
That was even before a 1997 GAO report (http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/ns97050.pdf) stated
During initial operational testing, concerns surfaced regarding the C-17’s ability to operate on short, wet runways. The Army defined a short austere airfield as a 3,000-foot long runway, either paved or unpaved, for the
purpose of operational testing. Simulations have shown that, during a landing on wet unpaved surfaces, the C-17 would slide off the end of a 3,000-foot long runway. Rather, simulations suggest that C-17 landings with a full payload on a wet (paved or unpaved) surface would require a 5,000-foot runway.
David I have researched the subject and have not found a single instance where a C-17 had ever landed on a 3500 foot runway in real life conditions, let alone a 3000 foot runway.
Yet the SOR written for Canada's Strategic Aircraft states that the aircraft must be able to land and take-off from 3500 foot unprepared runways. See it for yourself here:
http://www.forces.gc.ca/admmat/dgmpd/acps/docs/acps_sor_e.pdf
It states:
b. Take-off and landing from unpaved, austere airfields 27.4 meters (90 feet) wide and 1,067 meters (3,500 feet) in length, at sea level and temperature at ISA;
Yet we purchased the C-17 as an aircraft that met that SOR although there was a published and public GAO report that stated that the C-17 did not meet those requirements.
Another argument for buying C-17s was that we would be able to carry our own tanks and armoured vehicles instead of renting Antonovs. Well the US don't carry main battle tanks in their C-17s (although they can), they ship them in ships. The British who have operated the C-17 for over 8 years have never used them to carry a Main Battle Tank yet. They ship theirs in ships, like everyone else. Why did Canada need to send theirs in aircraft? This being said, after sending our Leo C-2s in Antonovs, our generals announced that the Leo 2s loaned from Germanu would be carried by our C-17s from Germany to Kandahar. Well guess what, although we had already received one C-17 when our Leos 2 were ready to go,we rented Antonovs to carry them to Kandahar. Why? Ask the CF to put a Leo 2 in a C-17 and fly it around Edmonton airport and land, and see what the reply. I don't think they can do it, perhaps for the same reason that the British never carried a Challenger tanks in theirs. The C-17 ramp is structurally limited to 60 tonnes and a special procedure was established for loading M-1 tanks in C-17s, along with a Boeing waiver. This procedure and waiver are valid for the M-1 tank only, not for the the Leo 2, not for the Challenger tank.
We claimed the C-17 was a tactical aircraft as well as a strategic aircraft. The British have never used theirs tactically and in the US, only a few highly trained and select SOLL II pilots and aircraft from the 437th do that kind of work which is very demanding on the aircraft which it batters. I don't see our CF “fonctionnaire” pilots doing that kind of work when they wont even dare fly aircraft that are unprotected against missiles into Afghanistan when civilian commercial pilots that are chartered by the same CF fly into there every day without such protection.
Then there is the very important cost issue. Boeing proposed these aircraft as civilian BC-17s. There were not takers worldwide. Why? Because they are way too expensive to operate profitably. The same goes for the CF. When all is counted, it will cost taxpayers several times more to carry freight in our own C-17s that to charter civilian air lifters. SEVERAL TIMES MORE. Yet some dishonest people have suggested that Canada would actually save money by operating C-17s rather than rent. Nothing is farther from the truth.
I could go on and on.
Had all of this procurement process not been shrouded in deceit and lies, and had a case for this acquisition been made based on true facts, I would accept it. But the Canadian people and taxpayers were conned into believing that this was a good acquisition, which is false.
The facts are we should have spent this money on other military hardware that was really needed, things that like you stated that we cannot charter out, like tactical helicopter, helicopter gunships, CAS aircraft or whatever it is the military need.
The chartering of civilian airlifters to support our Afghan deployment was an effective and cost efficient method we should have stuck to.
Evidently you already have. Although, just becuase someone doesn't happen to agree with your assessment of the situation, doesn't mean they are lying. Additionally, just because someone also doesn't happen to share your sense of priority, doesn't necessarily make them wrong.
First, you state that the USA and the UK ship their tanks overseas rather than flying them. Currently, I do not believe that the Canadian Forces have the ships with which to accomplish such a feat. As such, do you think we should have purchased warships instead? No? What other means would an independant Canadian Military employ then? What other aircraft, other than the C-17's would be capable of that.
You'll notice that I said Independant Canadian Military. In order for us to be truly soverign, our armed forces must be independant and capable of mobilizing our assets without the need to rely on foreign resources in order to do so. Whether you agree with that or not is entirely irrelevant. It's simply a fact of sovreignty.
Then there is the issue of Candian Content. Boeing built the C-17's. I would presume that the government followed guidelines when it came to Canadian Content in Canadian Contract Bids. How many of the other priorities you listed are built in Canada? (I ask that honestly because I don't know.) And then how much of the money we spent on the C-17's (and over the course of their lifetimes) will be injected into a Canadian Economy rather than a foreign one? How many Canadian Jobs were created/maintained because of this purchase decision?
No, I'd rather shop Canadian and spend more, then rent foreign and send the money OUT of our economy.
In an October 22 2003 speech the Minister of National Defence at the time, the Honourable John McCallum stated about Strategic Airlift:
“Over the past six fiscal years, Canada has spent approximately $107 million on strategic airlift, an average of $18 million per year. This is but a mere fraction of the annual interest on the cost of our own strategic airlift – let alone the capital cost… ”
To avoid paying 18 million a year to charter Strategic Airlift, part of which went to US Air Force C-17s and C-5s by the way, we spent 3.4 billion dollars on Boeing C-17s, plus the fuel, the crew and the other expenses which are not included in the 3.4 billion dollars but which were included in the 18 million Minister McCallum mentioned.
Although it is true that now we are spending much more than 18 million dollars a year on airlift because of Afghanistan, but once that is over in 1, 2 or 3 years, we would have gone back to spending under 20 million a year on airlift had we not invested in these aircraft. However, with 4 CF C-17s at Trenton, our cost will more likely be 250 million a year once all is counted (acquisition, interests, contracts, fuel, crews etc).
If you think this was a good way to spend tax dollars and military procurement money, fine with me but tell the paying public the truth, not any BS about saving money thanks to C-17s.
I'm sorry but I also have to reply to another point of your comment. A truly “sovereign country, with a truly sovereign military does not train and equip its military to be only effective as a part of a “coalition” that always involves its big neighbour. A truly sovereign country with a sovereign military has its own CAS, its own helicopters, its own air cover, helicopter gunships etc.
Like smaller countries such as The Netherlands, we should be able to deploy somewhere without having to count on such assets from other countries (read US) in order to deploy.
I totally agree. We should be able to deploy somewhere without having to count on the assets from other countries, including the US. That's why I said so. Truly Sovereign = Independant.
After Paul Martin massacred the Canadian Forces, we are having to rebuild them now. Everyone knows that there are other things we need, like helicopter gunships, search/rescue capable vechicles etc. All these things take time though, which brings me back to priorities. Because the government has prioritized things differently than how some others might like to see it, doesn't make either side wrong on the issue. It just makes them different. Fortunately or unfortunately (depending on your view), their (gov't) oppinion is the one that counts.
As far as a coalition-oriented action, until we are capable of being totally sovereign and independant, we have to act as best we can within the framework of our treaties and within our current limitations. As for NATO (whom I presume you're referencing), even though we don't yet have that capacity, we pull our own weight in other ways.
Once we do achieve that independance we can truly begin to organize our actions and activities in a way that will provide us with a greater respect internationally and can act independantly of our allies if required. Until we do though, and so long as we still have to “hitch a ride” from others, it's an unfortunate fact that we will sometimes have to suck-it-up in the face of things we don't totally agree with in order to achieve our goals. But that's life.
There is also the consideration that with the C-17's, we're capable of deploying to other places in the future without having to check on the availability of our allies' resources so that we might again “hitch a ride”. We could, for example, deploy to Darfur independantly of our allies. We could send support to Israel. We could respond to Canadian priorities and Canadian interests with greater frequency and greater effectiveness on our own.
C-17's make us more mobile. You may argue that sure we're mobile, but we don't have the equipment to be effective. That would be a good argument. Although I'd counter by saying it's better to be mobile and work within our limits while building towards that capability, than being capable and immobile. The point it, we have to start somewhere and the government made an executive decision which is their perrogative.
And yet Canada continues to lease Antonovs and Ilushins? DND published CC-177 usage from May 1st 2008, to April 30th 2009. A grand total of 2884 hours. That's approximately 2 hours per day, per aircraft. This while we're engaged in Afghanistan. It's cheaper and quicker to carry pallet cargo in even the CC-150 Polaris than the CC-177, which is best suited for oversize cargo. The equivalent of 2 round trips Trenton-Kandahar per month. The average cargo weight if 60 tonnes. Taking into account acquisition and operating costs, a CC-177 costs 45 000 a hour to fly, whereas an AN-124-100 and IL-76 could carry what 2 CC-177s can in the same distance for 42 000 a hour. Less than half the cost of 2 CC-177s flying. And what will our needs be after Afghanistan? General Schwartz , of US transportation command, is quoted as saying the companies that lease out the AN-124 and IL-76 are so reliable that late fees aren't even included in the contracts. That NATO leasing is for 3 C-17s, which almost all partners have pulled out, save for the US and maybe 1-2 other countries. The US has over 200 strategic airlifters, and provided one of the three frames. It's called NSAC. The cost will be 52 000 per hour. Not many countries are sticking to it. SALIS is cheaper, which is NATO leasing AN-124s. Chartering individually is cheaper.
Senator Carper : Do they have some kind of cost penalties built in so that if they don't, they pay a heavy cost?
General Schwartz : No, sir. They just operate. They are a very reliable outfit. And by the way, we access that capability through our CRAF partners, Atlas Air, a U.S. company, Lynden Air, another U.S. company. But the key point here is that they fly, and when the expectation is that we will move MRAPs as expeditiously as possible because kids are in jeopardy, I am not going to have airplanes broke in Europe or somewhere else when I have an alternative which, to date, has not resulted in a late delivery.
http://boeingc17.blogspot.com/2009/09/from-horses-mouth.html
So much for that. It's cheaper, more reliable, than to buy C-17s. This from a US Air Force General in command of Transportation. So much so that the CF continues to heavily charter IL-76s for flights to Afghanistan: http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/commun/ml-fe/vol_11/vol11_25/1125_full.pdf Starting page 6.
The C-17 is a dream machine, but is it really necessary for Canada? No.
Funny thing that you mention strong, and independent country. How exactly is Canada strong and independent for purchasing C-17s? What terrible thing was it to charter Il-76s and AN-124s as needed, like all of NATO does? Like we continue to do so even today? Care to guess how many times the CC-177 has been used for disaster relief in its first 18 months? 3 times. For 3 single flights of 30-40 tonnes. Something 2 Hercs, or CC-150s could have done. Maxime Bernier offered the CC-177s for disaster relief, only to be turned down because they were utterly unsuited for transporting the helicopters, and AN-124s were used instead.
The US could very well block Canada using it in places it doe snot agree with, Cuba for example. The US is known to block spare parts deliveries to nations it suddenly no longer likes. Iran, Venezuela, Pakistan because it got the bomb. ITAR forced Canada to let Boeing do all maintenance. What if it lands where the US won't go in? Do you really think Canada is so special that the US would never do such a thing to us? Or did you forget that France, a longtime strong ally of the US, which refused to join in Iraq in 2003, was banned from buying spare parts and other equipment for the US equipment it does have in order to deploy to Afghanistan? US military hardware always comes with policy strings attached, and if Canada strays far enough, we're done too. Recall Softwood? Oil?
You accuse people of pandering to liberal agendas and yet here you are pandering to the other end of the spectrum. Good job skippy. Way to call the kettle black.