View Full Version : Three More C-17s for RAF?
Archimedes
28th Dec 2006, 00:38
If the Times has understood things properly, it would appear that the cunning plan for C-17 procurement doesn't just stop at number 5. Of course, it wouldn't be a MoD procurement without there being a problem, though - namely the closing of the production line possibly thwarting the plan...
With no guarantees as to the precision of the content:
MoD pins hopes on Boeing amid Airbus doubts (http://business.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,9067-2520962,00.html)
DoctorStrangecab
28th Dec 2006, 04:12
The plan always was to buy the extra 3 (to make a total of 8). The question was always one of when can we get the money ...but the linkage with the A400M seems strange...isnt the C17 a strategic asset whereas the A400M will be a theatre asset??
speeddial
28th Dec 2006, 09:35
By theatre asset do you mean that the only place the A400M has flown so far has been as a model in a performance theatre?
DoctorStrangecab
28th Dec 2006, 13:01
Fnnaaar!..walked into that!
herkman
28th Dec 2006, 20:41
I note that in the early procurement phase, the RAAF was targeting 4 to 6 airframes, which eventually came down to four firm.
I suspect that based upon the RAF experience, that we will fly more hours than budgeted, which would mean the six would have been a better choice. This will also be impacted by the fact that they are ours, unlike the RAF ones which seem to have a lot of restrictions on their use. A good aircraft that will serve well.
However I also suspect that as long as they keep getting orders, that Boeing will keep the line open.
Was talk some months ago that more people would follow the Canadian ones, has anyone heard anything, there appears to be no announcement down here.
Regards
Col
West Coast
29th Dec 2006, 04:46
8 heavy transports as the backbone. Hope y'awl have a buttload of fast RO/RO ships.
Would the numbers be different with other than labour in charge?
BEagle
29th Dec 2006, 08:45
8 x C-17s. Hmm....impressive - NOT! Used to see more than that parked at Rhein-Main every time I landed at FRA a couple of years ago. On a good day the US would have about 4 times the UK's entire C-17 force just parked up at one aerodrome in Europe.....and they weren't leased either!
Difficult to know whether it would be different if we didn't have Trust-me-Tone and his cronies running things. On the one hand it is likely that any other government wouldn't be quite so keen to over commit the few remaining parts of the UK's armed forces in various hopeless world-policing fiascos - but on the other hand that would lead to questions about the need for such a capability at all.
The UK still hasn't learned that the insurance offered by a comprehensive military capability is worth the associated premiums! Over the past few years we (the UK) has done away with our strategic bombing capability (last used in 1982) and we've now lost (as far as I'm aware) our high level recce capability with the retirement of the PR9. The MRA4 Nimrod programme is years behind and everything seems to be being spent on EuroBlighter - rather than on the much more essential AT/AAR and RW replacements.
There are even rumours that the proposed FSTA tanker programme (a massive 9 airframes...:hmm:) might be cancelled - so the ancient VC10s might have to stagger on for more years yet. The TriShaw isn't quite so ancient and is more capable - but in the NKAWTG world it's 'hoses in the sky' which matters most and the TriShaw doesn't have wing hoses.
8 heavy transports as the backbone. Hope y'awl have a buttload of fast RO/RO ships. 6 of them, not a lot by US force levels, but reasobale for the UK. Foreland Shipping Limited, manages them for the MOD Strategic Sealift Service (yes, yet another PFI...).
The ships are: Beachy Head, Longstone, Hartland Point, Anvil Point, Hurst Point and Eddystone. Current Fleet. (http://www.aws.co.uk/awsm/currentfleet.html) All built within a couple of years....
darkstar99
29th Dec 2006, 10:15
8 x C-17s. Hmm....impressive - NOT! Used to see more than that parked at Rhein-Main every time I landed at FRA a couple of years ago. On a good day the US would have about 4 times the UK's entire C-17 force just parked up at one aerodrome in Europe.....and they weren't leased either!
And there you have it, beagle! The USAF park theirs up while we actually fly them!
FormerFlake
29th Dec 2006, 10:46
And there you have it, beagle! The USAF park theirs up while we actually fly them!
I believe the RAF C17s have the most hours out of all those made.
West Coast
29th Dec 2006, 16:43
Eight frames for a country of relative wealth, political stature and with international responsibilities/interists seems a bit on the light side ORAC. A small number of fast ships are not the answer for a shortfall of strategic airlift.
BTW, read your country just made the final payment on the lend/lease agreement. Sure do appreciate that.
BEagle
29th Dec 2006, 16:48
Don't spend it all at once!
But we were sure glad for the lend/lease agreement - thank you to your predecessors!
Blakey875
29th Dec 2006, 16:59
Yes - but there are four Toxic Laden US Navy ships rusting in Hartlepool you can have back free of charge?
West Coast
30th Dec 2006, 00:44
Haven't heard about that, enlighten me.
Two's in
30th Dec 2006, 01:02
Westie, story here;
http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=1055&id=1349062003
Some edits below, depending on your political hue, Friends of the Earth, the complainants, are either saving the planet for your Grandchildren, or are Fifth Columnists dedicated to the overthrow of Capitalism.
TI
AN ENGLISH High Court judge yesterday overturned a decision to allow ships from the so-called United States "ghost fleet" to be broken up in the UK.
The move is a victory for Friends of the Earth (FoE) which is battling to stop the "toxic" ships from being dismantled by Able UK on Teesside.
However, they were only four of 13 under the present contract between Able and the US authorities - "and those 13 are only a fraction of the 150 or so US Navy ships which the US wants urgently to dispose of, and are waiting for disposal in rivers in the US".
Giving a short judgment, Mr Justice Sullivan formally declared that the licence modification made on September 30 was "legally flawed". The judge said he intended to quash the modification order, but he would delay doing so until next week, when the ghost ships case returns to court - this time to deal with a planning row to which the case has given rise.
The FoE’s executive director, Tony Juniper, said that the battle would continue to try to prevent the nine other ships being sent across from the US - where they have been prevented from leaving by an injunction lodged by environmentalists in an American court.
"Our job now is to prevent the USA abdicating its environmental responsibilities by exporting the other nine ships. The four ships already in Hartlepool must be dealt with in the least environmentally damaging way."
MooseJaw
30th Dec 2006, 02:30
I believe the RAF C17s have the most hours out of all those made.
RAF 4xC17 originally Block 12 Extended Range (12ER). Four of a group of identical USAF ac. All since upgraded to Block 13ER. No operational C-17 is now less than B13 (current production is B17). UK aircraft are not leading their USAF equivalents - up front but in no way leading! ;)
MooseJaw
30th Dec 2006, 02:41
Eight frames for a country of relative wealth, political stature and with international responsibilities/interists seems a bit on the light side ORAC. A small number of fast ships are not the answer for a shortfall of strategic airlift.
BTW, read your country just made the final payment on the lend/lease agreement. Sure do appreciate that.
---
Not quite - UK paid for all 4 leases outright back in 2000/01.
UK has paid Boeing up-front for leases - 1 per ac - using cash obtained from Bond issue on Open Market. MoD now repays only premiums on those bonds. Probably a misreport of UK signing Options that confirm UK buy of all 4 at their leases end during 2008.
Leases get all the Headlines but were only smallest of 3 neat things in 2001 - the really smart stuff was the other 2; finding way to pay for leases in middle of usual overheated MoD budget and the really really neat support deal with USAF. :hmm:
West Coast
30th Dec 2006, 06:38
TI
Thanks. Strictly from what's in the article it sounds like ABLE didn't plan on the treehuggers upsetting a tidy little profit.
speeddial
30th Dec 2006, 08:59
MooseJaw,
I think the comment was suggesting that of all the C-17s made so far our four have spent the most time in the air so far.
MooseJaw
2nd Jan 2007, 14:44
Speedial,
Understood - but even by that measure Uk birds still don't show the highest hour/yr rate. But granted - UK does fly them hard!
Happy New Year,
MooseJaw.
Not_a_boffin
2nd Jan 2007, 15:29
Westie, story here;
http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=1055&id=1349062003
Some edits below, depending on your political hue, Friends of the Earth, the complainants, are either saving the planet for your Grandchildren, or are Fifth Columnists dedicated to the overthrow of Capitalism.
TI
Somewhat out of date and factually inaccurate. The ships are far from hooching with toxic waste. They do contain PCB, lead etc, but in stable form (cabling, paint etc) which can be recycled or disposed of. The facility in question already does the same for offshore structures in a highly efficient and protected manner, it is just local politicians and the anti-american sentiment prevalent in the UK labour party that has led the local borough council to refuse planning permission. Even greenpeace agrees that the facility could do the job with more than adequate safeguards and no impact on the local environment. Its also desperately needed to remove the large number of withdrawn RN ships currently littering the south coast.
Apologies for thread creep, just a personal blood-boiler....
Re: those old ships - the US could "sell" those ships to the RN to be commissioned then decommissioned and get around the "import" of toxic waste but under NuLabour this would be deemed all the new ships the RN were getting so no CVF :ugh:
As for the C-17s - there is a bit of dread that an early election might see the 4 Canadian slots freed up if the Liberals get back in. The early slot previously granted has apparently been missed given the failure to finalise contracts...
The Libs never wanted C-17s and their clown of a defence spokesman recently criticised the -130J purchase his party initiated while in power (owing to the short -130 being kicked from the FCA tender in the States - it escaped him that it was for a different requirement). I suppose he'd like to see the near-expired CC-130Hs go the way of the written off SKs which weren't replaced by the Chretien Liberal government, a decision which cost $500m.
Lyneham Lad
5th Feb 2007, 18:34
Canada gets USAF slots for August delivery after signing for four Boeing C-17 in 20-year C$4bn deal, settles provincial workshare quabble (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/02/05/211969/canada-gets-usaf-slots-for-august-delivery-after-signing-for-four-boeing-c-17-in-20-year-c4bn.html)
See what happens when someone actually makes a decision.......... If only the UK had people with such a capability :ugh:
pr00ne
5th Feb 2007, 19:03
Lyneham Lad,
Er, .......and just how long have we had our four C-17s for?
pr00ne
Lyneham Lad
5th Feb 2007, 19:11
and just how long have we had our four C-17s for?
:confused: I wasn't referring to the existing ones. Our gallant lads 'n lasses need and deserve more and better strategic AT to...........heck, why do I waste my breath replying :ugh:
Lyneham Lad - up until the last election there wasn't many here either and even they almost screwed it up with the offset deals.
MooseJaw
9th Feb 2007, 05:31
Common myth. Ours were 70th-ish off the production line originally Block 12 (Extended Range). Now Block 13. Others identical to ours are still a good way ahead. Many more (older birds) are further ahead.
However, keep up the high rate and that could easily change. Especially since USAF AMC last year moved more of theirs to their hubs nearer theatre. Reduced their annual crew time - also airframe hours - sojust makes us close gap quicker.