RAAF C-17 fleet to grow

[TBM-Legend]

Looks like the RAAF will be the second biggest operator of the mighty Globemaster 111 after this:


Australia formally requests extra C-17s - 11/13/2014 - Flight Global (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/australia-formally-requests-extra-c-17s-405997/)

[TBM-Legend]

Defence to buy two more of its workhorse C-17 transport planes (http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/defence-to-buy-two-more-of-its-workhorse-c17-transport-planes-20150409-1mhsan.html)

[melmothtw]

So that's two of the four previously announced (assuming the other two will not be taken up). By my maths, that leaves four white-tails still up for grabs, unless KenV knows better.

[KenV]

Four are spoken for, with contracts signed and money on the table.

Four more have signed letters of intent, but no contract, and no money changing hands. Anyone an still get any of those four.

Two are totally uncommitted.

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

The other two will likely be taken up but there's no rush until the ramp and hangar work at AMB is completed.


NZ is very keen for two as well...

[BBadanov]

Yes, PM announced this morning at 36 SQN the RAAF acquiring #7 and #8.


Nothing mentioned on the further 2 options, I can't really see it...someone else will snaffle them up.

[fergineer]

NZ may be keen but having just spent a shed full of money upgrading the C130 fleet it would be doubtful if money could stretch to buy any of them

[rh200]

NZ is very keen for two as well...

For ferrying sheep between the north and south islands!:p

[BBadanov]

NZ may be keen but having just spent a shed full of money upgrading the C130 fleet it would be doubtful if money could stretch to buy any of them


Well, we just paid $350m per aircraft... and we already have the infrastructure in place.
And you are comparing that with the cost of upgrading 1965 airframes !!??

[fergineer]

What I am saying BB is that we have our Herc fleet in a good way so why would we need to splash out that sort of money for something that we don't need. Aus can carry on paying out money, is there really a need for it?

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

As much as I love Hercs, they no longer have much strategic relevance.


C-17s allow a country to spread its strategic influence and to back up its diplomatic efforts in the wider Pacific/Asian/Antarctic regions. They are more than a truck, they are true national assets.

[Alexander.Yakovlev]

Foxtrot Alpha 18,

I would suggest that the C-130 and C-17 compliment each other in providing strategic influence, the C-17 through reach/capacity and the C-130 in it's tactical abilities as demonstrated in disaster relief ops as an example.

The ideal solution is clearly both.

[BBadanov]

The ideal solution is clearly both.


No Alex, F/A-18's point in this example is valid.
The C-17 has been providing strategic influence for us in Asia and the Pacific in recent years. It has taken over from what the C-130 used to provide.


To us, the C-130's tactical abilities - in its C-130J-30 form - is a primary war in-theatre transport, while C-17 has done disaster relief ops closer to home.

[tartare]

It'd be nice to think the RNZAF could get the last two white tails.
Personally, I'd be very surprised if they did.
Have long thought the C-17 would be ideal for a country that's so isolated - and even with upgrades the Hercs are getting very long in the tooth.
But even with a booming economy, NZ's budgeted commitment to defence is pathetic, and support of it's small but highly professional air-force is poor.
They need a lot more than NH-90s, second hand Seasprites and a few A109s.

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

My understanding through my knowledgeable contacts is that NZ is VERY interested in two C-17s, and that work is actively underway to make it work financially and operationally.

Who would have thought Australia would have 8 (gusting 10) C-17s a decade ago? Before that it was just a notional project sitting on a shelf somewhere. But then the Boxing Day tsunami and the Bali bombings happened, and the Hercs were caught lacking in their ability to rapidly respond to these large-scale disasters.

Since then there has been the Japanese tsunami, cyclones at home and in the Philippines and Vanuatu, MH17 recovery, not to mention ops in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the withdrawal of heavy equipment from Afghanistan.

I agree the C-17 AND the C-130 both have a place, both in strategic influence and in tactical ops, and would not be surprised to see NZ buy C-130Js or A400Ms in a decade or so...

[seafury45]

Would it be a viable option for Australia to buy the last 2 C-17s and NZ lease them or pay for them in some way.
That would save some infrastructure costs for them surely.

I probably have a naive view of politics and defence economics :D

[ORAC]

My understanding through my knowledgeable contacts is that NZ is VERY interested in two C-17s From last December...

Reports: NZ considering C-17 acquisition (http://australianaviation.com.au/2014/12/reports-nz-considering-c-17-acquisition/)

[tartare]

...well I hope you guys prove me wrong - it would be fantastic for the RNZAF if they got them - huge capability and morale boost.
Two C-17s and four A400Ms, and 40 Squadron would be sorted.
Then just wait for the first operational UCAV to stand up 75 squadron again...!

[Davef68]

Both the Germans and Spanish have ordered A400Ms that they now don't want, so it might be a bit of a buyers market.

[Alexander.Yakovlev]

I completely agree with the well thought out and reasoned posts. To me it is clear that for quick and reactive heavy lift, the C-17 is the natural proven platform of choice.

My concern is that for realisation of aid relief strategy, you require the assets to distribute aid once in theatre, and for that SH and C-130 aircraft are your friends.

As always the answer is you want as many as possible but the compromise is financial.

[tdracer]

According to an article regarding the RAAF purchase in this mornings Boeing News, there are 5 remaining C-17s that are not spoken for.

[KenV]

To me it is clear that for quick and reactive heavy lift, the C-17 is the natural proven platform of choice.

My concern is that for realisation of aid relief strategy, you require the assets to distribute aid once in theatre, and for that SH and C-130 aircraft are your friends.
Don't know about that last statement. C-17s can get into just about any airfield a C-130 can get into, while delivering more than 4 times the relief supplies. And a really small airfield is often a poor choice for delivering supplies. How so? Small airfields are also austere airfields and without security forces in place, the aircraft could get overrun by desperate locals. Achieving and maintaining security is a huge deal in such an operation.

[tdracer]

According to Boeing News, the final C-17 left Long Beach yesterday. It flew to the Boeing facility in San Antonio and will be delivered to Qatar Emiri Air Force in early 2016.

[ORAC]

Left for San Antonio, the check-out and maintenance depot. According to AW&ST there is one unspoken for white tail still in the hangar there.

Boeing Ends C-17 Airlifter Production in California | Defense content from Aviation Week (http://aviationweek.com/defense/boeing-ends-c-17-production-california)

"....LOS ANGELES – Boeing closed out C-17 deliveries and seven decades of aircraft production in Long Beach, California, with the departure of the last airlifter for the Qatar Emiri air force to the company’s San Antonio facility on Nov 29.

The final aircraft is one of four C-17s that will be delivered to Qatar in 2016, and together with one aircraft that remains unsold and in storage in Texas, takes the overall production tally to 279. Not including the prototype, structural test airframes and the five undelivered aircraft, Boeing has so far officially delivered 271 C-17s, including 223 to the U.S. Air Force and 48 to international operators....."

[MPN11]

Could HMG, or PPRuNe , have a whip-round to buy the White Tail?

When it hits the fan, as it always does, we [U]never have enough assets.

[GlobalNav]

Considering all the costs and troubles involved in developing new airplanes (e.g., C-17, A-400, KC-46...) it's a shame that, once sorted out, these costs are not amortized over a much larger fleet. Seems to me like such a waste not to.

[tdracer]

Global, I believe the original plan was for 220 aircraft and they built 279, so at least it's not like many military programs where the development costs so much there's no money left to pay for the planned production run (F-22 and B-2 come to mind, with the F-35 a likely candidate).
Besides, if there was a demand for more aircraft, there's been plenty of opportunity for potential buyers to step up.

[Just This Once...]

With short-term politicians, platforms remaining in service for decades and spending profiles stretching way out into the future, there is a very valid concern that we have no credible way to keep our aircraft manufacturing windows inline with military demand cycles.

There will be demand for many more C-17s over the next decade or two, but no economic way for commercial manufactures to meet it. High-rate and efficient production runs are great for civilian products, but not for the peaks, troughs and uncertain funding profiles of military procurement.

[KenV]

Left for San Antonio, the check-out and maintenance depot. According to AW&ST there is one unspoken for white tail still in the hangar there.

Two comments:

1. San Antonio is not a "check-out" facility. San Antonio does heavy maintenance and mods and do check-out only to ensure airworthiness immediately prior to final delivery to the customer.

2. Ship 272 is the only unsold C-17. It is stored outside in a "preserved" state, not inside a hangar.

[Just This Once...]

Got it. San Antonio does not do 'check-out and maintenance' it does 'maintenance and check-out'.

Thanks for clearing that up Ken.

:ok:

[KenV]

Global, I believe the original plan was for 220 aircraft.....

The Douglas C-X proposal in 1981 was for a 210 aircraft buy. FSED (Full Scale Engineering Development) contract award was in 1982 and C-X was designated C-17 at that time. Planning was still for 210 aircraft. Although Douglas won the competition and was granted FSED authorization, no funding was authorized till 1985. Douglas floated the program on internal funds during that period. It nearly wiped them out and robbed them of funds for commercial aircraft development. The T-45 Goshawk (carrier capable BAE Hawk Mk. 60) was also in development in Long Beach at that time and while it was well funded, it absorbed a lot of engineering and other limited resources.

[tdracer]

With short-term politicians, platforms remaining in service for decades and spending profiles stretching way out into the future, there is a very valid concern that we have no credible way to keep our aircraft manufacturing windows inline with military demand cycles.

There will be demand for many more C-17s over the next decade or two, but no economic way for commercial manufactures to meet it. High-rate and efficient production runs are great for civilian products, but not for the peaks, troughs and uncertain funding profiles of military procurement.


I understand where you're coming from, but taken to an extreme it would mean we'd still be building C-141s and flying around KC-135s - oh wait :E
The C-17 is already fairly old technology - the engines (the F117 is really just the military version of the PW2000) date to the early 1980s and the airframe the mid 1980s. Most commercial aircraft from that vintage have either gone out of production or gone through at least one major redesign in that time frame. Further, military aircraft don't get anywhere near the hours/cycles that commercial airlines do and last much longer.
Eventually there will be a need to come up with a replacement for the C-17 - and yes it will be expensive. But it'll likely be a far better airplane due to the technological advances in the meantime.

[GlobalNav]

OK, so they only planned for 210-200 tails. Still. The bird is a workhorse, like those which came before it. As a tax-payer I'd just like to continue to take advantage of the lower risk of equipping with a proven airplane, that is very capable. No longer an option now, but in my opinion, a short-sighted decision.

[Buster Hyman]

Eventually there will be a need to come up with a replacement for the C-17 - and yes it will be expensive. But it'll likely be a far better airplane due to the technological advances in the meantime.

I know I'm stepping into a discussion I'm not really qualified to be in but, I can't help but think of the C-130 (J) and how it has been transformed with upgrades whilst still maintaining the reliable work horse platform. The line is closed so it's a moot point, but there is precedent.

(Now, if only someone could tell me why the B52 was never re-engined...) :p

[KenV]

(Now, if only someone could tell me why the B52 was never re-engined...)

Short sightedness. Every time a proposal was floated to re-engine the B-52, it was pointed out that project xyz was going to replace all the B-52s, so new engines would be a waste. But none of the new projects ended up actually replacing the B-52.

The worst re-engine waste was arguably the re-engine portion of the C-5M upgrade.

[KenV]

I understand where you're coming from, but taken to an extreme it would mean we'd still be building C-141s and flying around KC-135s - oh wait :E
The C-17 is already fairly old technology - the engines (the F117 is really just the military version of the PW2000) date to the early 1980s and the airframe the mid 1980s.

The C-17 is a wide-body airlifter, the 141 and 135 were narrow body. It's going to be really tough to significantly improve on the C-17. Yeah, you can go to an all composite wing and more fuel efficient engines, but the result will likely be a relatively small incremental improvement over the C-17. The A400 makes use of modern airliner tech, but applied to a military airlifter the performance improvement has been incrementally small. What's driving airliner improvements is fuel efficiency. Fuel efficiency is a low priority in the military world.

As an example, take the KC-46. It's based on the 767 which is OLDER than the C-17 (first flight was in 1981, the same year the C-17 proposal was submitted.) That "old tech" airframe still works GREAT and will continue to do so for decades to come. Modifying the new high tech 787 as a tanker will be much more difficult because it is a single point design very finely tuned to a very specific mission. Along those lines, it will be interesting to see if Airbus will be able to modify the A330NEO as a tanker. To make the A330 competitive will require much more than just mounting new engines. Once the fuselage is tweaked and stretched and longer span wings added, it will be interesting to see if it makes sense to go to all the effort and expense to modify and certify it as a tanker when new-build KC-46s will still be available.

[stilton]

I read recently that Airbus plans to avoid that issue by continuing to manufacture the 'Classic' A330 to serve as their tanker platform even
after the NEO enters service.

[BEagle]

There is a New Standard A330 'green' aircraft for new customers' MRTTs; it is not based on the A330neo.

But with the emergence of the A350XWB, it is likely that redundant A330 airliners could be converted into a 'lite' MRTT configuration for 'price sensitive' customers, as was the case with the A310.

Several years ago, Boeing themselves admitted that it would not be possible to develop the 787 into a tanker as it didn't have the 'necessary configuration', whatever that was supposed to mean.

So the future still looks like A330MRTT or KC-46A only - although the KC-390 might have some limited potential, much the same as the KC-130.

[KenV]

Wow. Are they going to keep two parallel lines running, one assembling the A330CEO and the other the A330NEO, or are they going to try to produce both the CEO and the NEO on the same line?

[rjtjrt]

likely that redundant A330 airliners could be converted into a 'lite' MRTT configuration for 'price sensitive' customers
Already happening - the extra 2 recently announced for RAAF are to be converted from ex QANTAS A330's.
Whether they are 'lite' I cannot say, but the impression at the announcement was they would be to same standard as first new build RAAF aircraft.