dl021
Posts: 10836
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:04 pm

RAAF To Buy C-17s

Fri Mar 03, 2006 9:56 pm

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?
 
Stealthz
Posts: 5546
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 11:43 am

RAAF To Buy C-17s

Fri Mar 03, 2006 10:58 pm

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!
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RAAF To Buy C-17s

Fri Mar 03, 2006 11:39 pm

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".
 
Dougloid
Posts: 7248
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 2:44 am

RAAF To Buy C-17s

Sat Mar 04, 2006 12:08 am

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.
If you believe in coincidence, you haven't looked close enough-Joe Leaphorn
 
User avatar
N328KF
Posts: 5807
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

RAAF To Buy C-17s

Sat Mar 04, 2006 12:16 am

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.' -Theodore Roosevelt
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RAAF To Buy C-17s

Sat Mar 04, 2006 1:05 am

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".
 
LMP737
Posts: 4800
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

RAAF To Buy C-17s

Sat Mar 04, 2006 2:38 am

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.
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
Dougloid
Posts: 7248
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 2:44 am

RAAF To Buy C-17s

Sat Mar 04, 2006 3:03 am

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.
If you believe in coincidence, you haven't looked close enough-Joe Leaphorn
 
CX747
Posts: 5566
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

RAAF To Buy C-17s

Sat Mar 04, 2006 4:37 am

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
 
columba
Posts: 5043
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 10:12 pm

RAAF To Buy C-17s

Sat Mar 04, 2006 5:09 am

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
 
Stealthz
Posts: 5546
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 11:43 am

RAAF To Buy C-17s

Sat Mar 04, 2006 5:28 am

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!
 
CX747
Posts: 5566
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

RAAF To Buy C-17s

Sat Mar 04, 2006 5:39 am

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
 
LMP737
Posts: 4800
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

RE: Raaf To Buy C-17s

Sat Mar 04, 2006 7:36 am

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.
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
Dougloid
Posts: 7248
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 2:44 am

RE: Raaf To Buy C-17s

Sat Mar 04, 2006 9:12 am

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.
If you believe in coincidence, you haven't looked close enough-Joe Leaphorn
 
GDB
Posts: 12652
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: Raaf To Buy C-17s

Sat Mar 04, 2006 9:31 am

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.
 
CX747
Posts: 5566
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

RE: Raaf To Buy C-17s

Sat Mar 04, 2006 11:01 am

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
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Raaf To Buy C-17s

Sat Mar 04, 2006 12:34 pm

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.
 
CX747
Posts: 5566
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

RE: Raaf To Buy C-17s

Sat Mar 04, 2006 12:44 pm

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
 
mauriceb
Posts: 2150
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2004 2:50 am

RE: Raaf To Buy C-17s

Sat Mar 04, 2006 6:46 pm

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
 
keesje
Posts: 8610
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Raaf To Buy C-17s

Sat Mar 04, 2006 9:27 pm

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.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
petertenthije
Posts: 3256
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2001 10:00 pm

RE: Raaf To Buy C-17s

Sun Mar 05, 2006 1:20 am

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!
 
GDB
Posts: 12652
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: Raaf To Buy C-17s

Sun Mar 05, 2006 1:45 am

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.
 
CX747
Posts: 5566
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

RE: Raaf To Buy C-17s

Sun Mar 05, 2006 5:24 am

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
 
A342
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: Raaf To Buy C-17s

Sun Mar 05, 2006 5:50 am

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.
 
CX747
Posts: 5566
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

RE: Raaf To Buy C-17s

Sun Mar 05, 2006 6:24 am

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
 
A342
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: Raaf To Buy C-17s

Sun Mar 05, 2006 7:07 am

Quoting CX747 (Reply 24):
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".

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 tons, A-400M: 37 tons.

Or is it technology ?

The An-70 has modern contraprops, sometimes considered Propfans, and is generally very advanced.

The An-124 gets improved Russian/Ukrainian engines, still not as advanced as modern western engines.

Both aircraft can/will be fitted with modern avionics. I guess, on customer request, also western equipment.
Exceptions confirm the rule.
 
CX747
Posts: 5566
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

RE: Raaf To Buy C-17s

Sun Mar 05, 2006 8:38 am

My feelings are that the Antonov products are not as popular as the C-130 or A400 in today's market.
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
 
GDB
Posts: 12652
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: Raaf To Buy C-17s

Sun Mar 05, 2006 9:00 am

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 anything else), seemed to have doomed it.

But, it would never be considered for a large scale Europe wide procurement, Germany might have flirted with the idea (nearly wrecking the A400M at a very early stage, just like the Eurofighter was nearly wrecked a few years before).

Too much uncertainty with the stability of the AN-70 programme, and of Ukraine itself, putting NATO standard equipment into it would have offset some of the hyped low cost of the aircraft, some European NATO air arms would never have gone for it (the RAF would have brought more C-130Js, likely some more C-17's too), hard to see France buying it too.

AN-70, however potentially good, had delays that really put the political, pre programme launch screw ups of what eventually became A400M, into perspective.
Bringing the former FLA programme under the Airbus wing, had probably saved the effort.
We will see soon enough how A400M measures up in flight test, hopefully it may also avoid the frankly unacceptable delays in clearing the supposodly 'in service' C-130J to actually perform as advertised.

We are talking years here, only fairly recently have RAF C-130Js finally been cleared for full operational service, since the first deliveries in the late 1990's, it might have been software, not the engineering of the C-130J itself, but this sort of stuff was supposed to be part of the package.
As an early user, the RAF probably expected a period of time to get it totally up and running, but nothing like what actually happened.
IMHO, this was been the 'quiet scandal' in military procurement delays of recent times.
 
MissedApproach
Posts: 678
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:12 am

RE: Raaf To Buy C-17s

Sun Mar 05, 2006 9:55 am

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

That's because they aren't. They operate Leopard 1A3 or 1A4, weighs a good 20 tonnes less as seen here.
Can you hear me now?
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Raaf To Buy C-17s

Sun Mar 05, 2006 10:00 am

Quoting MissedApproach (Reply 28):
That's because they aren't. They operate Leopard 1A3 or 1A4,

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 made a decision, just don't know what it would have been.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
griffs0000
Posts: 10
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 5:36 pm

RE: Raaf To Buy C-17s

Sun Mar 05, 2006 10:29 am

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 June and December 2006.Any more info on this topic can be found at www.defencenews.com.au
 
Dougloid
Posts: 7248
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 2:44 am

RE: Raaf To Buy C-17s

Sun Mar 05, 2006 1:29 pm

Quoting MissedApproach (Reply 28):
Quoting Dougloid (Reply 7):
I did not know that OZ is an M1 Abrams user.

That's because they aren't. They operate Leopard 1A3 or 1A4, weighs a good 20 tonnes less as seen here.

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/armament class. M1's got good fire control, as it can shoot on the fly at 40 mph, and the engine's a thing of beauty.

And as our colleague has already noted, they're buying the M1, which, along with the Challenger are the only two heavy MBTs from the west to have been combat tested.
If you believe in coincidence, you haven't looked close enough-Joe Leaphorn
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 13760
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Raaf To Buy C-17s

Sun Mar 05, 2006 10:53 pm

Quoting GDB (Reply 14):
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.

And the C-5 as well!

From Wikipedia

Quote:
In the mid-1970s, wing cracks were found throughout the fleet. Consequently, all C-5A aircraft were restricted to a maximum of 50,000 pounds (22,680kg) of cargo each. To increase their lifting capability and service life, 77 C-5As underwent a re-winging program from 1981 to 1987. (In the redesigned wing, a new aluminum alloy was used that didn't exist ten years prior.) The final re-winged C-5A was delivered in July 1986.



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.

Indeed. Does anyone how one would use the A-400M to fulfil the Sweden-Thailand mission mentioned above? The Great Circle path goes over a lot of Chines and Russian airspace, so one would hope to be on good terms with those governments in a time of need.

Quoting A342 (Reply 23):
This is wrong. The An-70 is waiting for customers and An-124 production is restarted.

Interesting. Do you have a source for this? The best I could find on Google was this article from December which said they were still trying to get financing to restart production.
Inspiration, move me brightly!
 
LMP737
Posts: 4800
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

RE: Raaf To Buy C-17s

Mon Mar 06, 2006 12:15 am

Quoting GDB (Reply 14):
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?

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 Swedish citizens killed and the survivors having no way to get home the Swedish govt had not way to get to them. Or send aid in a timely manner.
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
GDB
Posts: 12652
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: Raaf To Buy C-17s

Mon Mar 06, 2006 1:32 am

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 99% of the rest of the time.

Back to RAAF C-17's, as their A330 tankers will have, if I'm correct, a centreline boom, unlike the RAF examples, presumably it will be able to refuel in flight the C-17's if need be.
I suppose the boom was included to refuel RAAF 'Wedgetail' 737-AW&C aircraft, as well as F-111's, though the latter will be out of service in about 2010.
 
A342
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: Raaf To Buy C-17s

Mon Mar 06, 2006 2:02 am

Quoting GDB (Reply 27):
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 anything else), seemed to have doomed it.

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 seriously considering it.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 32):
Do you have a source for this?

All major German aerospace magazines report it, among those a highly credible one. I see it as a fact. Polet has already ordered 5 aircraft.
Exceptions confirm the rule.
 
echster
Posts: 393
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2004 4:01 pm

RE: Raaf To Buy C-17s

Tue Mar 07, 2006 12:54 am

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 total to 200 frames.

Last week, the Commander of USTRANSCOM testified at a Congressional hearing and said he would like 200, but no more than that. He said 20 C-17s have been dedicated to Middle East ops hauling intra-theater and their life expectancy is being greatly reduced because of the cycles. When bought, they were planned to operate 1,000 hrs/yr for 30 years but those have been seeing way more than that. When asked how they could fund it, he said due to budget issues he'd prefer through a supplemental because, after all, they're operating strictly for the war.

When further pushed on more C-17s or a new tanker, he said they needed the tankers. I don't remember the quote but it was something along the lines of, "tankers are more important than the 181st, 201st, and definitely the 221st C-17s." He said they will buy a tanker that can also haul the mail and that will reduce the strain placed on the C-17 aircraft.

One issue is the lift study went with 292 frames. A few of the senators noted that would be 180 C-17s and 112 modified C-5s, but he said the number was 292 but not broken down between C-17s and C-5s. IMHO, we may see the 200 C-17s and a reduced number of C-5s that are modified, or we may see 200 C-17s and the 112 C-5s for 312 heavy lift aircraft.
 
CX747
Posts: 5566
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

RE: Raaf To Buy C-17s

Tue Mar 07, 2006 6:09 am

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 looking to purchase additonal (20) C-17s to replace the C-5s that will just head to the desert.

Do we have an update on the Swedes and the C-17? I think the Swedes will find plenty of missions for their potential 17s. Having your own organic airlift option takes alot of guess work and "maybes" out of deployements etc. The Brits didn't think there was much need for the -17s but finally broke down and lease them. What a difference a few years make. The RAF -17s have over flown their hour marks in each year of service.
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
 
TSV
Posts: 1604
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 1999 12:13 pm

RE: Raaf To Buy C-17s

Tue Mar 07, 2006 9:38 am

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 to find work for the Belfast after the C-17s arrive. It is great to see it in CNS and TSV regularly.
"I told you I was ill ..." Spike Milligan
 
GDB
Posts: 12652
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: Raaf To Buy C-17s

Wed Mar 08, 2006 3:03 am

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 May 2001?

Deployments to Afghanistan in 2001/2, the build up and prosecution of the 2nd Iraq war 2003-onwards, a new, much bigger Afghan deployment happening now.
As well as more mundane stuff like flying a Tornado F.3 fuselage (with wings stowed inside too), all the way to the Falklands.

I don't really see a similar situation with Sweden, either now or in the future.
 
CX747
Posts: 5566
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

RE: Raaf To Buy C-17s

Wed Mar 08, 2006 4:39 am

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 capability. Being able to respond in short notice to many of today's battles is extremely important. Having an organic long-range heavy lift soloution availabe 24 hrs a day 365 days a year is important. It is the responsibility of these nations, as Nato allies to be prepared. Waiting for a private company to come pick up your warriors or a spare USAF C-17/C-5 is not acceptable.

Sweden was not prepared for the war in Afghanistan nor was it prepared when hundreds of its citizens died due to the tsunami. The government's response to the tsunami was extremely delayed due to the lack of long range capacity. The C-17 would have been delivering much need support personal and equipment only hours later. Sweden does not need many C-17s, but they have learned that they do need a few.

Here is my main question. If you don't need the cargo capacity of the C-17 or the range, then why on earth do you need the A400M? The A400M is a drastic increase over today's current C-130H and J fleets but more expensive to purchase. Why do they need almost twice the lift capacity of their largest aircraft (C-130) if heavy lift and long range aren't an issue?

The A400M is coming, and in my opinion it is needed. That doesn't mean that it is an answer to all cargo lift problems. The C-17 and C-130 are proven platforms that each fit a niche of their own. To be biased and say that the C-130 is too old and too small is not correct. It is cheaper to purchase than the A400M and fullfills many missions. The A400M is an improvement over the C-130, it flies faster, further and carries more. That doesn't mean that those requirements are always going to be need. Case in point, the USAF and US Army purchasing smaller aircrat than the C-130 because the Herk is overkill on many routes. The C-17 has an extremely large capacity and is capable of hauling it over long ranges. It is more expensive to purchase and operate than either the A400M or C-130 but gives you more bang for your buck.

Some of the more interesting news I have heard is that 20 C-17s have been dedicated to moving cargo just in-theater. While I don't expect other countries to purchase the -17 and use it in such a manner, it does show its tremendous capabilities.
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
 
A342
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: Raaf To Buy C-17s

Wed Mar 08, 2006 6:29 am

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 tanker.

As an example, Germany´s A310 (Medevac) operation to the Tsunami area has worked quite well.
Exceptions confirm the rule.
 
CX747
Posts: 5566
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

RE: Raaf To Buy C-17s

Wed Mar 08, 2006 7:11 am

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/cargo aicraft is that in very situations does fuel and cargo need to go to the same place.
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
 
dl021
Posts: 10836
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:04 pm

RE: Raaf To Buy C-17s

Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:39 am

Quoting TSV" class=quote target=_blank>TSV (Reply 38):
I hope Heavylift still manages to find work for the Belfast after the C-17s arrive. It is great to see it in CNS and TSV regularly.

I thought the Belfast was working mostly to the Solomons. Is it doing any military heavylift?
Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
 
columba
Posts: 5043
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 10:12 pm

RE: Raaf To Buy C-17s

Wed Mar 08, 2006 4:08 pm

Quoting A342 (Reply 41):
As an example, Germany�s A310 (Medevac) operation to the Tsunami area has worked quite well.

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 aircraft proven best for such a task was the C-17. Of course the Minisiter of Defence Mr.Struck was not amused by Mr.Fischer demanding new military equipment especially with the low budget he had to deal with.
It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
 
GDB
Posts: 12652
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: Raaf To Buy C-17s

Thu Mar 09, 2006 2:42 am

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/R RB211-535 powered, refuelling probe equipped, C-17K's for the RAF, about 15-20 of them.
Not bother with the C-130J, C-17K replaces some of the highest time legacy C-130Ks, the rest-30-40, refurbished until A400M comes on line.
 
User avatar
USAF336TFS
Posts: 1355
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: Raaf To Buy C-17s

Thu Mar 09, 2006 4:44 am

Quoting GDB (Reply 45):
Columba hit the nail on the head......in an ideal world etc.

True as always. Columba is usually right.  Smile

Quoting GDB (Reply 45):
Personally, I think the UK should have taken up the offer in the mid 1990's from MDD of R/R RB211-535 powered, refuelling probe equipped, C-17K's for the RAF, about 15-20 of them.
Not bother with the C-130J, C-17K replaces some of the highest time legacy C-130Ks, the rest-30-40, refurbished until A400M comes on line.

Couldn't agree more with you. I think the RAAF will be very pleased with their C-17s. And there are moves in the USAF to order at least 8 more.
Congradulations to the Aussies and Boeing. I'm still wondering why no offical announcement on Boeings site, unless I missed it?

Regards,
Sal
336th Tactical Fighter Squadron, 4th Fighter Wing, Seymour Johnson AFB
 
socal
Posts: 464
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2005 9:20 pm

RE: Raaf To Buy C-17s

Thu Mar 09, 2006 10:57 am

Good for the Aussies, they need a good Mil transport plane.  airplane 
I Love HNL.............
 
DAYflyer
Posts: 3546
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: Raaf To Buy C-17s

Thu Mar 09, 2006 11:08 pm

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. 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.

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 give the other nations more time to order.
One Nation Under God
 
TSV
Posts: 1604
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 1999 12:13 pm

RE: Raaf To Buy C-17s

Fri Mar 10, 2006 4:46 am

Quoting DL021 (Reply 43):
I thought the Belfast was working mostly to the Solomons. Is it doing any military heavylift?

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 sit over the other side at CNS a lot recently. Obviously they have given up on the idea of getting a second one airworthy and flying it out?

Also they (Heavylift) have 2 722s over there as well to do jobs if they don't have to use the Belfast.
"I told you I was ill ..." Spike Milligan

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests