Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
RAAF To Buy C-17s  
User currently offlineDL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11447 posts, RR: 75
Posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 7617 times:

The Australian Defense Minister announced that the Government intends to buy 4 C-17s to meet their strategic transport needs. I'm guessing they had to order them now if at all due to the potential line shutdown.

I wonder how this impacts the potential for A400 sales to them?

Good going for Boeing, and for Australia.

Who else needs and can afford them?

http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Stor...=newsfinder&siteid=google&keyword=

http://today.reuters.com/news/articl...s&storyid=nSYD302292&imageid=&cap=


Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
69 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineStealthZ From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5715 posts, RR: 44
Reply 1, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 7597 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting DL021 (Thread starter):
I wonder how this impacts the potential for A400 sales to them?

Pretty negatively I would think.

The ADF need strategic airlift now(well years ago really) and the A400 is not in position to deliver that capability.

Quoting DL021 (Thread starter):
Who else needs and can afford them?

Maybe some of the Airbus partner countries.. may decide they can't wait for A400



If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 2, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 7578 times:

Quoting DL021 (Thread starter):
Who else needs and can afford them?

Singapore? Japan? Korea? (Taiwan can certainly afford, but its unlikely they will be given the opportunity to purchase on account of (a) the obvious political issues, and (b) they haven't closed on deals previously agreed to like conventional submarines.) Fearless prediction: don't be shocked when this bird is offered to both India and Pakistan.

In the meantime, great news for the RAAF, Boeing, and the workers at Long Beach!



"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineDougloid From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 7564 times:

I think the main reason the C17 hasn't done as well as it could have are three fold.

First is my well known grudge against Boeing.


Their plan to eliminate competing knowledge centers in this country is demonstrated. However, they did build the airplanes that were contracted for, and that was strictly to milk as much profit out of the transaction as possible.

Second there was the everpresent "Who needs it when we can upgrade the C5" school of thought that was largely funded by Lockheed. These folks came within an ace of making sure that the C17 never got built in the era before Boeing.

And third there is the special purpose nature of the bird itself. It was designed around the M1 Abrams tank, and it was designed to operate out of a 5,000 foot unimproved airfield-the C5 needs a lotta runway.

When you get on the little cart and go down the railway under the floor and get a look at the monster floor structure you KNOW it's meant to haul Weight and not Cube. It's a heavylifter.

However, in the case of the RAAF, my guess is that it is a matter of "If you build it, they will come." They're investing in heavylift capability and they will figure out a use for it later on.

The difference between the C17 and the A400M is four years wait, price, and lifting capacity. It's also got a service history that can be planned for.

Nonetheless, it is an elegant design exercise, the best that could be produced by DOUGLAS workers and DOUGLAS engineering.

The only thing Boeing about it is the nameplate and the mailbox at the curb.


User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6491 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 7556 times:

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 3):
And third there is the special purpose nature of the bird itself. It was designed around the M1 Abrams tank, and it was designed to operate out of a 5,000 foot unimproved airfield-the C5 needs a lotta runway.



Quoting Dougloid (Reply 3):
However, in the case of the RAAF, my guess is that it is a matter of "If you build it, they will come." They're investing in heavylift capability and they will figure out a use for it later on.

Australia operates the M1, as well.



When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 5, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 7532 times:

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 3):
Second there was the everpresent "Who needs it when we can upgrade the C5" school of thought that was largely funded by Lockheed. These folks came within an ace of making sure that the C17 never got built in the era before Boeing.

DoD is targeting this issue and asking for the authority to purchase new build C-17's rather than upgrade the early C-5's.

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 3):
And third there is the special purpose nature of the bird itself. It was designed around the M1 Abrams tank, and it was designed to operate out of a 5,000 foot unimproved airfield-the C5 needs a lotta runway.

Then, too, there is the capability for 16 463L's side-by-side. Not an M1, but impressive STOL cargo carrying capability!



"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 7489 times:

In the latest issue ov AV Week(Feb 27) a number of other countries are listed as possible customers as well. Sweden is suposedly interested in two aircraft. Canada has been provided pricing and availability information on the C-17. In addition Singapore has shown some interest and Italy, Germany and Norway have asked for details on the aircraft. It shall be interesting to see who else ends up ordering the aircraft.

User currently offlineDougloid From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 7473 times:

Quoting N328KF (Reply 4):
Quoting Dougloid (Reply 3):
However, in the case of the RAAF, my guess is that it is a matter of "If you build it, they will come." They're investing in heavylift capability and they will figure out a use for it later on.

Australia operates the M1, as well.

I did not know that OZ is an M1 Abrams user. It is an elegant piece of hardware. My wife works on a national guard post and there is a resident population of about fifteen M1 tanks. Every once in a while they have to be moved or the crews go out for a joyride up the dirt road. But no live fire dern it. Those're some big honkin' rounds too.

One thing you notice right away is that they're very quiet, and most of the noise comes from the treads.

There was a pretty good special the other day on teevee that followed a crew of gyrenes through tank school at Fort Knox including live fire exercises and an unscheduled breakdown in the field.

I think if I was the loader I'd be as nervous as a long tailed cat in a room full of rocking chairs. There's no room for error there. You could lose an arm or get crushed with no problem at all.


User currently offlineCX747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4454 posts, RR: 5
Reply 8, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 7434 times:

It will be more than interesting to see which countries if any order the C-17. One only has to look at Brits and their experience with the -17 to see that it is an outstanding aircraft. The 4 birds they have are rarely home and have flown over their alloted hours every year. It would be great to see Germany, Sweden and Italy also order a few airframes. I know that the A400 is going to come online soon, but thats a C-130 style platform.


"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
User currently offlineColumba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7078 posts, RR: 4
Reply 9, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 7419 times:

Quoting LMP737 (Reply 6):
Germany and Norway have asked for details on the aircraft

Sure about that ? What you read here in aviation magazines and newspapers is only the lease of AN 124s for Nato and the introduction of the A400M.
The C-17 was an option but I thought the possibility of a C 17 has ended with the lease of the An 124s.
Glad to see it is not fully of the table.



It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
User currently offlineStealthZ From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5715 posts, RR: 44
Reply 10, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 7411 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 7):
I did not know that OZ is an M1 Abrams user

We aren't.. Yet! The plan is we will aquire 50 of them over the next couple of years. A decision not without controversy here, there are some that say the thing is too big and heavy, indeed they are too big for our current landing ships. There is a school of thought that 50 is not enough for a meaningful armour force anyway and the purchase is just to give our troops experience of working with US armour units.

Cheers

C



If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
User currently offlineCX747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4454 posts, RR: 5
Reply 11, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 7408 times:

There were several European nations mentioned in the C-17 article that were surprising. Germany was mentioned along with Sweden, Norway and Italy. The main jist of the article was that these nations needed to make a purchase decision by June of this year or they were out of luck. Sweden was especially interested due to the tsunami damage. Hundreds of Swedes died and the country could not get help there due to their lack of heavy lift capability.

Another thing helping the -17 is, pnce it is out of production, heavy lifter options dwindle down to 2 choices. C-130J or A400M. The J model is coming into its own right now but hasn't set the world on fire. It does come from a line of extremely proven platforms though so its potential should fall into line. The A400M is still an idea, a concept, and a news clip as it gets built. How it truly handles the load is yet to be determined. Just think of the A380 fiasco with wing load. So, with all that being said, the C-17 is a proven workhorse that is available for only a limited time. You can either buy it now or live with the shorter ranged, smaller cargo capable platforms of Lockheed and EADS.



"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 7378 times:

Quoting Columba (Reply 9):
Sure about that ? What you read here in aviation magazines and newspapers is only the lease of AN 124s for Nato and the introduction of the A400M.
The C-17 was an option but I thought the possibility of a C 17 has ended with the lease of the An 124s.
Glad to see it is not fully of the table.

Well that's what Av Week said, and they are usually on the money. With that said I doubt we will see any C-17's in Luftwaffe colors. It would be cool though. As for the "leased" AN-124's the "leasing" company can always say no.


User currently offlineDougloid From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 7334 times:

Quoting StealthZ (Reply 10):
We aren't.. Yet! The plan is we will aquire 50 of them over the next couple of years. A decision not without controversy here, there are some that say the thing is too big and heavy, indeed they are too big for our current landing ships. There is a school of thought that 50 is not enough for a meaningful armour force anyway and the purchase is just to give our troops experience of working with US armour units.

The M1 is big and heavy for sure but it has a lot of get up and go. A lot of the things people thought would be its downfall proved to be non issues-mostly centering around the engine. It uses fuel, it's true, but there's no worry about battle damage to a liquid cooling system. Plus the powerplant is a lot lighter than any liquid cooled unit of comparable horsepower.

It's a combination of a lot of good ideas and it is one project that did not suffer from the NIH syndrome (Not Invented Here). It's got the Chobham armor and the Rheinmetall 120mm smoothbore. Fire control's second to none as well-shooting on the fly is not a problem.

It's one of the few western MBTs out there that's been proven in a shooting war-the Challenger and the Merkava being the others. Woulda been nice to see how the Leopard did in Iraq.


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13229 posts, RR: 77
Reply 14, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 7327 times:

While the RAAF, with it's expanding capability for overseas deployment, the sheer distance to deply, has long been a prospective C-17 customer, will this buy end anymore talk of filling the Caribou replacement-at the other end of the scale, there is only so much money in the transport modernisation budget.
They also have 12 C-130J's, will getting C-17's reduce the requirement for the remaining legacy C-130 replacement, for which A400M was always an outsider.

But I really cannot see anyone else, at least within Europe buying any, the RAF will lease it's 5th aircraft, then buy them outright, but A400M is on order for the RAF too.

With all respect to the Norway and Swedish AF, them getting C-17 is laughable, Germany very, very unlikely, Italy is a maybe-though haven't already got enough transport types already?

CX747-what exactly has the A380 wing issue (minor as it seems to be), got to do with A400M, you want wing failures, check out the development of the C-17 itself.

Fact is, A400M should provide the extra capability the C-130J simply lacks, (as well as the regular threats to it's production), whilst C-17 is just too much aircraft, too much expense for nearly all AF's.
Germany has all those C-160's to replace, doubtful they will undermine/dilute this vital need by throwing C-17 into the mix, whatever it's attributes.

In any case, A400M is not really a C-17 competitor, it's more of a C-130J competitor offering more capability.


User currently offlineCX747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4454 posts, RR: 5
Reply 15, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 7319 times:

The A380 wing issue is more than a "minor" problem. While I have no doubt that the problem will be solved, having it break early shows that just because something is SUPPPOSED to do something doesn't mean that it actually will.

As for the A400M being a superior platform in comparison to the C-130, in many ways it is but none of it has been proven. Numbers are numbers and real world performance always changes things. The Cessna 152 should do alot of things also, but during the summer in Arizona you were lucky if the damn thing did 3/4ths of its supposed cruising speed. I'm not saying that it won't be superior or offer more capabilities, but I have yet to see it flying in and out of Bagram or Tallil. Also, the USAF is supposedly looking for a C-130 replacement circa 2010-2012. One has to wonder what Boeing and Lockheed are going to come up with.



"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29805 posts, RR: 58
Reply 16, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 7291 times:

Comparing the C-130J/A400 vs C-17/C-5 is sort of like comparing a Cessna 174,182, 206 and 207 respecively.

They all are variations of a theme



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineCX747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4454 posts, RR: 5
Reply 17, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 7288 times:

I agree, all of these aircraft are variations that do the same job in different ways. Their range, payload, fuel burn, speed, purchase price, maitenance cost and operating cost all vary.


"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
User currently offlineMauriceB From Netherlands, joined Aug 2004, 2490 posts, RR: 25
Reply 18, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 7224 times:

The Dutch government today announced that they are in talks with Boeing and USAF about ordering a couple C-17. Since the Dutch Force tasks are changing (they have a big role in cargo shipment to war zones) they said they need new cargo aircrafts. they said that 1 more KC-10 (already flying) and one more C-130 (not yet flying) isnt enough and that the C-17 will likely be choosen

User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 7201 times:

Quoting GDB (Reply 14):
In any case, A400M is not really a C-17 competitor, it's more of a C-130J competitor offering more capability.

Yes, about double the payload, much faster & further.


User currently offlinePetertenthije From Netherlands, joined Jul 2001, 3376 posts, RR: 12
Reply 20, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 7165 times:

Quoting MauriceB (Reply 18):
The Dutch government today announced that they are in talks with Boeing and USAF about ordering a couple C-17. Since the Dutch Force tasks are changing (they have a big role in cargo shipment to war zones) they said they need new cargo aircrafts. they said that 1 more KC-10 (already flying) and one more C-130 (not yet flying) isnt enough and that the C-17 will likely be choosen

Indeed, according to luchtvaartnieuws they started discussions with Boing. This deal would not surprise me a bit. At the moment the RNlAF has been chartering a lot of Il-76s. These are rather noisy and therefor not too well liked around Eindhoven, the main transport base for the RNlAF. When the airlift to Afghanistan was in full swing it was not uncommon to have 3 or even more IL-76s flying into EIN daily.

http://www.luchtvaartnieuws.nl/news/?ID=12652



Attamottamotta!
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13229 posts, RR: 77
Reply 21, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 7157 times:

The Dutch might take a couple, though a small European AF, look at the deployment capability they have now, compared to others.
So it sorts of fits in with what they do anyway.

CX747, I still don't get it, A380 and A400M are totally different, might as well question the wings of every other Airbus, but they too are airliners.
It seems ironic to bring this up in a thread about the C-17, considering it's development history.


User currently offlineCX747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4454 posts, RR: 5
Reply 22, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 7123 times:

I'm glad to hear that the Dutch are seriously considering purchasing the C-17. I think it would suite their expanding role quite well.

GDB: I never said that the C-17 is perfect or that it had a perfect development history. I wasn't shouting about the C-17 before it entered service. It took several years for it to gain respect. Even all these years later, there are still a few areas where one has to wonder where the C-141 is. Together, the C-5, C-17 and C-130 fill the needs. No one platform is better than the others.

I agree completely on the A380. The A380 and A400 are two different birds etc. I don't know why you are grouping them together. I was using the A380 as an example of today's engineering sometimes not hitting the mark. Basically crowing about the A400M and how great it is or will be is like a professional sports rookie talking trash. Until you've been in the trenches you just can't do that.

It was mentioned earlier that all of these platforms do the same job in different manners and shouldn't really be compared. Look at the United States Air Force and United States Army, they are actually looking for something SMALLER than the C-130. They have found that the C-130 is to large for several missions. If you put the A400 into the C-130s place you would have a major issue of misuse.



"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
User currently offlineA342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4689 posts, RR: 3
Reply 23, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 7112 times:

Quoting CX747 (Reply 11):
Another thing helping the -17 is, pnce it is out of production, heavy lifter options dwindle down to 2 choices. C-130J or A400M.

This is wrong. The An-70 is waiting for customers and An-124 production is restarted.



Exceptions confirm the rule.
User currently offlineCX747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4454 posts, RR: 5
Reply 24, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 7099 times:

You are correct, maybe I am a little bit close minded but I don't really think of the AN-70 or AN-124 as being on the same "level". Most western operators aren't going to choose either one. That being said, the AN-70 video on this website a few weeks ago was amazing.


"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
25 A342 : I don´t understand what you mean by level, I guess payload ? An-70: 47 tons, An-124: 150 tons. To compare: C-130: 22 tons, C-17: 75 tons, C-5: 120 t
26 CX747 : My feelings are that the Antonov products are not as popular as the C-130 or A400 in today's market.
27 GDB : AN-70, it's still an active programme? Sure it looked great, but crashes, lack of support from the Russian AF (probably about money as much as anythin
28 Post contains links MissedApproach : That's because they aren't. They operate Leopard 1A3 or 1A4, weighs a good 20 tonnes less as seen here.
29 L-188 : Well, I know that they where testing replacements and last I heard was that they where down to the M1 or Leopard II. By now I am sure they would have
30 Post contains links Griffs0000 : Just to set the record straight on the M1. We have bought 59 refurbished M1A1. These tanks are scheduled for delivery to the army in two shipments in
31 Dougloid : Asked and answered, counselor. They're not in the same class. The M1 is more like the Leopard 2, which is in about the same weight/performance/armame
32 Post contains links Revelation : And the C-5 as well! From Wikipedia Indeed. Does anyone how one would use the A-400M to fulfil the Sweden-Thailand mission mentioned above? The Great
33 LMP737 : Reading the article in Av Week I got the impression that Swedens interest in the C-17 has a lot to do with the tsunami in 2004. With the number of Sw
34 GDB : Since the Tusnami was a thankfully very rare event, could Sweden just charter a IL-76 or similar, it's just very hard to see how they would use them 9
35 A342 : This is true. But be sure, if a customers rings Antonov and has CASH, it´ll be ready in no time. I can see countries like Brazil, China or India ser
36 Echster : Just wanted to use this C-17 thread to say the USAF is looking at asking Congress for 20 more C-17s....and they may fund them. That would bring the to
37 CX747 : I believe that not all of the C-5s are going to be refurbed now. Updating some of the oldest C-5s doesn't really make any sense, so the AF is now look
38 TSV : Great (and unexpected swift) news on the C-17 order. And it looks like eventually they'll be based at Amberley to boot! I hope Heavylift still manages
39 GDB : CX747, you are right about the higher than planned RAF C-17 use. But consider, what has happened since the first one arrived at RAF Brize Norton in Ma
40 CX747 : Not seeing a situation and being prepared for one are two different things. Europe's main problem over the last 30+ years is a lack of heavy lift capa
41 A342 : In case of Sweden and the Tsunami, I don´t see the C-17 as an optimal solution. They´d better buy an airliner derivate, which can also be used as a
42 CX747 : What the C-17 or most military platform offers is a roll on roll off capablity. Having the A310 though was very helpfull. The problem with tanker/carg
43 DL021 : I thought the Belfast was working mostly to the Solomons. Is it doing any military heavylift?
44 Columba : Maybe not as well as we think because the former Foreign Minisiter Joschka Fischer demanded new cargo planes after the Tsunami and as he had said the
45 GDB : Columba hit the nail on the head......in an ideal world etc. Personally, I think the UK should have taken up the offer in the mid 1990's from MDD of R
46 Post contains images USAF336TFS : True as always. Columba is usually right. Couldn't agree more with you. I think the RAAF will be very pleased with their C-17s. And there are moves i
47 Post contains images Socal : Good for the Aussies, they need a good Mil transport plane.
48 DAYflyer : Well said. However, there is news today that the USAF may be requeting more of these superb birds from US congress this week. If that happens, it may
49 TSV : It was but I think it is mainly whatever they can get these days and it is only used on the odd occasion for military heavylift now as it seems to si
50 Revelation : I too would like to see more discussion around this topic. If my facts are correct, the A-400M without refuelling has an intra-contenental range, but
51 GDB : A400Ms are meant to be fitted, from the start, with wing pylon refuelling hoses, as an option. So if most AF's take this up, an improvement in Europea
52 Revelation : Probably for other propeller driven aircraft or helicopters, since jets do not like to fly slow enough to refuel from a prop-driven tanker, no? If fi
53 Echster : Call me crazy, but if funding is such a problem for foreign militaries, why wouldn't Boeing accept payments similar to its commercial business. If a C
54 N328KF : That's exactly what the RAF did. It's also what USAF tried with the tankers, and got busted on.
55 GDB : Revelation, how about all those USMC F-18 refuellings from KC-130's? I know Argentina, Canada Saudi Arabia and others have them too, Argentina used th
56 CX747 : It is not new, but it is not done often. The KC-130s fly to slow to regularly refuel fast movers. Most of the times they are refueling helicopters and
57 Revelation : I'm not sure about how they work: are the tankers staged along the way, or do they sortie from the same bases as the F-18s do, and return to base whe
58 GDB : I seriously doubt those USMC KC-130's were brought just to refuel choppers, I think the first examples were delivered well before they even had any ch
59 LMP737 : This is true, when I was stationed at Miramar in the late 80's early 90's F-14's would routinely refuel from KC-130 out of El Toro.
60 L-188 : I thought that they had tanks they could pull out of them to fly cargo instead.
61 Agill : Well maybe not, when you consider that we'll be getting more and more involved in military operations abroad with the creation of the apid reaction f
62 TSV : Anyone know why that is? Are the Australian ones to be higher than standard too?
63 GDB : Agill, thanks for the info, a surprise when you tend to think of Sweden as a supporter of UN style operations, but little else, especially during the
64 Agill : Well I think the new direction of our forces is good, to actually do something instead of just sitting around waiting for the Russians. But it would
65 StealthZ : The Swedish NH-90 variant has a cabin that 24cm higher than other variants, this was to give an increase in cargo volume and to allow mission special
66 Post contains links AussieAMEgirl : For all those that want REAL information about the C17's not just media speculation and reports, or personal opinions, read these: http://www.minister
67 Dougloid : Good catch. The Minister points out that one good reason to acquire them is having the heavylift capacity available when Australia needs it. The C17
68 Post contains links Echster : Looks like it's another step closer to being official. http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...-15-bn-on-4-c17s-updated/index.php
69 N328KF : You mean the official RAAF press release wasn't enough for you?
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic RAAF To Buy C-17s
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Canada To Buy 4 Boeing C-17s posted Wed May 31 2006 00:31:33 by KrisYYZ
Next AFB To Get C-17s? posted Wed Jun 14 2006 04:23:14 by Dacman
Senate Clears Nasa To Buy Russian Spaceships posted Mon Sep 26 2005 10:47:26 by Centrair
Croatia Wants To Buy F-16... Again posted Sat Mar 12 2005 11:08:33 by TripleDelta
Malaysia About To Buy A400M posted Mon Jan 24 2005 17:12:49 by Columba
South Africa Set To Buy 8 To 14 Airbus A400Ms posted Fri Dec 10 2004 09:57:44 by KEESJE
RAF To Buy Outright The C17? posted Fri Apr 16 2004 19:25:04 by Splitzer
US Customs To Buy Indian Helicopters? posted Wed Nov 26 2003 18:32:43 by Gamps
SwedenAirForce To Buy A400M? posted Fri Oct 3 2003 16:11:47 by Solnabo
Malaysia Plans To Buy Super Hornets posted Wed Oct 1 2003 19:28:28 by Triple Seven

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format