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.