Globemasters to land at CFB Trenton; Extra planes equal extra work for squadron

Wasn't the reason the bought these over-priced moving vans to stop from having to rent those 'inferior' Russian planes?

A searing indictment of this wasteful, foolhardy purchase.

If we have the planes, and they are being used and we still need to rent other planes how is that a waste of money? What kind of military leaves itself open to renting planes all the time in hopes that they are available?

If we have the planes, and they are being used and we still need to rent other planes how is that a waste of money? What kind of military leaves itself open to renting planes all the time in hopes that they are available?

Logic fails Streaker, but of course, he'd love us being more reliant on the US to deploy our armed forces...right Streaker?

If we have the planes, and they are being used and we still need to rent other planes how is that a waste of money? What kind of military leaves itself open to renting planes all the time in hopes that they are available?

Actually, pretty much all the NATO nations are in that boat (renting planes), simply because none of them can afford such an expensvie plane (both in purchase and operating costs).

No, but the Conservatives said that the Russian planes were totally incapable of meeting our need and even though we have bought 4 C-17s at a cost of $350 million ro so each, we'll still need to rent the Russian planes?

Excuse me, but it seems obvious to me that the inferior Russian planes aren't so inferior at all. The AN-124s, which we were told couldn't land in Kandahar because they lacked countermeasures, dropped off our tanks right after we signed the deal for the C-17s. We could have bought brand new Russian planes for (at most) 1-3 the cost, but more likely 1/4. So we could have had more planes which are more capable and that are cheaper to run.

Unless Harper vastly increases defence spending (his increases are roughly the same as the Liberals were for the past 5 years - $1 billion or so annually), the CF will discover how much these planes are going to cost us. It'll mean fewer flights of CP-140s and/or CF-18s, simply because these fuel hogs will eat up the whole budget.

Buying those planes was a backroom deal to help Bush with his own domestic pork barrel politics. The planes, as capable as they are, are boondoggle plain and simple. Our generals saw the UK and Australia buying them and start shouting, "Me too! Me too!"

If we have the planes, and they are being used and we still need to rent other planes how is that a waste of money? What kind of military leaves itself open to renting planes all the time in hopes that they are available?

Logic fails Streaker, but of course, he'd love us being more reliant on the US to deploy our armed forces...right Streaker?

We didn't seem to have too many problems getting to Afghanistan in 2001 without the C-17s...we rented planes and caught a few rides from the USA, just like the rest of NATO.

Its pretty simple, the more resources we throw at Afstan, the more re-supply support they need. While we have drastically improved our airlift capability, there is now and always will be during times of large deployments need for additional airlift, sometimesto heavy for a C-17. For example, the C-17 is a heavy lifter and can handle a Leopard C1, however, the Leopard C2, (unless drastically reduced in weight) is to heavy for a C-17, and would require contracted airlift such as the Antanov AN- 124.

If we have the planes, and they are being used and we still need to rent other planes how is that a waste of money? What kind of military leaves itself open to renting planes all the time in hopes that they are available?

Logic fails Streaker, but of course, he'd love us being more reliant on the US to deploy our armed forces...right Streaker?

We didn't seem to have too many problems getting to Afghanistan in 2001 without the C-17s...we rented planes and caught a few rides from the USA, just like the rest of NATO.

2001? Really now? The bulk of our forces was deployed on Feb 2, 2002. Those token units we sent in in the beginning were basically what the US could of fit in their transports.

If we have the planes, and they are being used and we still need to rent other planes how is that a waste of money? What kind of military leaves itself open to renting planes all the time in hopes that they are available?

Logic fails Streaker, but of course, he'd love us being more reliant on the US to deploy our armed forces...right Streaker?

We didn't seem to have too many problems getting to Afghanistan in 2001 without the C-17s...we rented planes and caught a few rides from the USA, just like the rest of NATO.

True, but we have since purchased a ton of new vehicles and equipment to large for our Hercs to fly. We could continue to rent, but we paid near a million bucks per chalk to get the tanks in. Then there is the problem of priority. We have found when dealing with the leasing agent a deal is only a deal unless another country needs airlift and is prepared to pay more than the agreed rate. This happens on a regular basis when there is a humanitarian crisis and countries are trying to cash in on the positive PR.

instead of 12 herc flights bi monthly they can do the same with two globemasters, if that isn't saving money then I don't know what is!

If we have the planes, and they are being used and we still need to rent other planes how is that a waste of money? What kind of military leaves itself open to renting planes all the time in hopes that they are available?

Logic fails Streaker, but of course, he'd love us being more reliant on the US to deploy our armed forces...right Streaker?

The only thing defying logic was our government's insistence on buying 4 C-17s when for the same money it could have acquired 12 or more Antonovs.

If we have the planes, and they are being used and we still need to rent other planes how is that a waste of money? What kind of military leaves itself open to renting planes all the time in hopes that they are available?

Logic fails Streaker, but of course, he'd love us being more reliant on the US to deploy our armed forces...right Streaker?

The only thing defying logic was our government's insistence on buying 4 C-17s when for the same money it could have acquired 12 or more Antonovs.

No doubt initially the cost would have been cheaper, but you really dont have to look any further than how Russia shut off oil supplies to the EU over a dispute with the Ukraine during a record breaking cold winter to figure this is not a country we should be beholden to for aircraft spares. If you further look into getting military certifications, manuals, training crew locations, overcoming language barriers, training simulators it quickly becomes not such a good deal. While the 17 cost a shitload of cash, it comes with guaranteed parts availability anywhere in the world, access to US simulators, training in the US (saving us cash to build school houses and sims), digital manuals updated monthly, etc etc etc. The 17 also has the ability to land and take off on the same runways as a C130, and is far more fuel efficient than an An 124.

Those all seem like very marginal advantages in relation to the massively higher cost of the C-17.

Marginal? Those seem to be excellent advantages. The training and language barriers especially, and if we need parts, I'd rather not beg Russia to do it....