SMH article re RAAF buying c-17s

[Taildragger67]

Relief for stretched Hercules to cost $2b - SMH

"dodgy Antonovs" - bit strong, innit? I thought the AN-124's record was alright?

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/relief-for-stretched-hercules-to-cost-2b/2006/02/20/1140284005870.html

Relief for stretched Hercules to cost $2b

By Tom Allard

February 21, 2006

THE Federal Government is poised to buy at least four C-17 Globemaster transport planes to relieve pressure on its overworked fleet of Hercules C-130s, which have given almost three years of non-stop service in Iraq.

Costing up to $2 billion for the four, the huge aircraft can carry four times as much as the C-130, land on airstrips as short as 900 metres with a full load and comfortably accommodate the Australian Defence Force's new heavyweight battle tank.

The high priority being placed on the purchase by senior Defence Force figures reflects serious operational problems during deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Defence Force has had to borrow similar aircraft from the US, Britain and Russia to supply its forces, causing resentment from Australia's allies, logistical headaches and even danger for forces and dignitaries travelling in dodgy Russian-built Antonovs to the Middle East.

Defence insiders told the Herald that the US-built C-17 Globemasters had been settled on after the merits of Airbus's cheaper but smaller A400M were considered. It is expected that the new aircraft will be based at Richmond, home of 36 Squadron.

"The fact is that this is the only one that can really take the Abrams," said one Defence source, referring to the heavy-armoured M1A1 Abrams battle tank Australia is buying from the US.

The decision to buy the aircraft is expected to be announced at budget time, or when the new Defence Capability Plan - a 10-year, $50 billion defence spending blueprint - is released mid-year.

The Herald understands that Defence is weighing up which is the best method to pay for the aircraft, which cost $220 million each but will cost as much again in terms of training, electronic warfare upgrades and spares.

While the US and British tend to supply their forces for a few weeks, Australian military personnel in the Middle East often need several months' worth of provisions and ammunition to overcome the stretched supply line back to Australia.

The recent deployment of SAS to Afghanistan reportedly required 18 supply trips from Kuwait by a C-17.

In Iraq two C-130 aircraft have been operating almost around the clock for three years ferrying supplies and troops.

This high tempo of operations - the C-130s have also operated in Afghanistan and in tsunami relief - has caused significant wear and tear and stretched spares and maintenance staff.

The fast-tracked purchase of the aircraft also reflects the new military doctrine for the Defence Force outlined late last year.

It said Australia would make "meaningful" contributions to coalition military operations overseas. Previously it had described such Australian deployments as "niche".

But Defence will be under pressure to make savings elsewhere, by delaying or scrapping other programs.

Defence Force finances have not met audit standards for several years and, while budget coffers are awash with funds thanks to the resources boom and the growing economy, it is unlikely that Defence will be given leave to spend as it sees fit.

However, it will be promised real increases in funding of at least 3 per cent for the next decade in the budget. A spokesman for the Minister for Defence, Brendan Nelson, said no final decision had been made on the aircraft.

[Pass-A-Frozo]

People see Russian and think "Antonov". Probably actually referring to the IL-76

[numbskull]

Why should Australian taxpayers have to fork out billions of dollars to have the capability to invade other countries such as Iraq? They are the Australian DEFENCE forces after all, not the Australian Invasion Forces. If we really need them down the track for the defence of Australia then I'm sure the Yanks will provide them for us for an appropriate sum of money.

Why shouldn't they outsource this capability to the lowest cost operater such as the Russia? Or if the yanks so desperately need our soldiers on the battlefield to create the illusion of a coalition then let them pay for it.

Maybe Mr Frozo will find his job outsourced, his career prospects limited or take a massive pay cut and then understand what it feels like to be on the wrong end of a globalised competetive cost cutting excercise.

[Like This - Do That]

Numbskull

If we are presented with a threat to our interests how do YOU propose we move defensive (!!!!) forces to the operation? A fleet of C-17s isn't just for moving people to and from places like Iraq or Afghanistan. Have you any idea how difficult it is be to lift a light mech brigade from Darwin to the Kimberley, for example?

And as for Australia invading other countries .... with what? An ADF grossly underfunded and shrunk shrunk shrunk for the last 3 decades?

I'm sure your intentions are honourable, but you're being a goose.

[Aussie]

Pass-A-Frozo

Could be another type to add to your name :)

Theyre talking about it being based in Sunny Richmond, however i dont know bout the short runway with full loads...?

Aussie

[king oath]

Here are Australian forces "helping" Iraq at great expense, and the cocky new Iraqi Government tells us to take our wheat and shove it because we are not nice people to trade with.

Bring em home Johnny.

[Shitsu_Tonka]

How many Herc J's could you get for $2B ?!

Using carrying the Abrams as justification just shows what a stupid decision buying a bloody battle tank was in the first place.

'European Cold War era Armoured Corps Doctrine' philosophy in a 'post Soviet Oil-War dressed-up-as-terrorism' reality.

Are we going to fly four whole Abrams tanks to Iran and rock up on the doorstop of Tehran? Oh - the 'shock and awe' of it!

[Time Bomb Ted]

We could always sell everything, buy 5 nuclear attack submarines and park them off the coast of any country who considers invading us.

That would save a bucket load of money. All we have to do is find a country to sell us nuclear weapons. Shouldn’t be too hard???

TBT

[Capt Claret]

numbskull

Bravo sir, well said.

As for the justification for the C-17s, the play has probably gone like this.

10*Gen Boddington-Smythe: "I say Smithers, what say we by some of these new fangled Abrams tanks, what?"

Fixer-upper Smithers: "Jolly good idea Sir. Here's the requisition, how many shall we order?

Some years later ....

Fixer-upper Smithers: " You know Sir, now that we've ordered these bluddy great tanks, perhaps we should think about how we're gonna transport the buggas!"

10*Gen Boddington-Smythe: "Top idea Smithers, now where's that requisition form, 4 should do."

As an aside, when the procurement of the Abrams tank was announced, an American defence analyst interviewed on ABC radio (PM/AM/The World Today?) expressed surprise that the ADF would waste money on such a large tank, when we had no capability to transport it, much less the need for it for the defence of Australia.

[Shitsu_Tonka]

Capt Claret,

I remember the exact interview - around early 2004 I think. Mention was made of 'bang for buck' - wise how much further the money could have stretched on an upgrade to existing Leopards.

The Abrams was even a bit of a white elephant to the US - untl they got all empirical in the sandpit again.

[Capt Claret]

G'day ****zu,

That's the one. Now one question, is that empirical or empire-ical? ;)

[tinpis]

Abrams = Haliburton staff car. :hmm:

[psycho joe]

Too right.

And while your at it why aren't they using upgraded Sopwith Camels and 303 rifles. And whats going on with this DPCU business, real soldiers wore red coats. And everbody knows Australia has only ever fought wars on the Australian mainland.

I suggest you guys spend some time as a grunt with limited heavy lift support.

[Taildragger67]

Are we going to fly four whole Abrams tanks to Iran and rock up on the doorstop of Tehran? Oh - the 'shock and awe' of it!

Four C17s wouldn't even get four tanks there - you're forgetting maint & u/s! Be lucky to have one op'able at any given time...

[Shitsu_Tonka]

I suggest you guys spend some time as a grunt with limited heavy lift support.

Are you speaking from experience or guessing what it is like?

[griffinblack]

Don’t buy into the C17 to carry the M1 – the likelihood of air transporting the M1 is very low. They can however take 3 (I believe) LAV 25 – that means they could deploy a Cav Tp with “stuff” with 3 maybe 4 C17’s. The tanks will be deployed by LPA/LHD’s. The C17’s would in all likelihood carry recon, advance party, airmobility/air manoeuvre assets. And of course gear – a hell of a lot of gear (bullets and beans).
****su, you’re a trafficker are you not? You state: “'European Cold War era Armoured Corps Doctrine' philosophy in a 'post Soviet Oil-War dressed-up-as-terrorism' reality.” Do you know what hardening and networking (H and N) is about? Do you know what an RPG does to a Leopard tank and what it does to an M1? Do you understand warfighting in complex terrain doctrine? Let me assure you, and you just have to trust me on this, that the M1 is a good tank for what the ADF is doing (current ops) and what it is likely to do in the future.
My view – the C17 is an excellent choice. 4 is about the right number. Of course that is to replace, not augment, the C130H.

[numbskull]

Psycho Joe- why would any one want to spend time as a grunt with limited heavy support.Why not just outsource the soldiering to to any one of a dozen south east asian countries. Its not like its never been done before. Mercenaries are the second oldest profession in the world. They'll do it for a hell of a lot less!!

Like This do That- Australia did invade Iraq on pretty flimsy reasons. OK we did have to support our allies but it was just a grab for their oilfields!! Why did we buy the tanks in the first place? Do we seriously expect to use them in Australia, the Kimberlies or the jungles of Asia? Or did we simply buy them to support the USA when they invade other countries? What the hell are we doing in Iraq or Afghanistan anyway? In 1914-1918 hundreds of thousands of Australians died after the the Arch Duke of Austria was assasinated to begin WW1- why did so many Australians have to die for that? Those that can't learn from history are doomed to repeat it!! Let's face it, we don't need to spend billions to have the capability of sending armed forces to the other side of the world to defend Australia.

And anyway who in Australia will be able to fix the C-17's? The only one with any heavy maint experience and the facilities has been Qantas and they're about to send that capability to Asia.

OK, so I'll be the first to admit I'm no defence analyst but as a taxpayer I think our money could be spent better.

[Buster Hyman]

Well, I'd prefer an aircraft carrier...if anyone in CBR was asking.:rolleyes:

[Shitsu_Tonka]

griffinblack

The RAAC role is close-support protection for small arms deployments - IAW the MOLE doctrine, but the Armour still has to be deployed.

I have followed the H&N arguments and agree it makes sense - but the question still remains about the numbers, and the mobility.

The Leopard is indeed vulnerable - and is really a dinosaur of the Cold War doctrine I mentioned.

Like you I agree that the C17 is an excellent, if expensive, platform and the likely roles are not to do with Abrams.

But, from a purely Air Power aspect, is the C17 the best use of funds?

[Point0Five]

And anyway who in Australia will be able to fix the C-17's? The only one with any heavy maint experience and the facilities has been Qantas and they're about to send that capability to Asia.
Ummmm........ if Qantas were to send that work to Asia, the capability would remain in Australia and able to perform heavy maint on C-17s. But you aren't interested in Defence providing work for Australian Industry, now are you? :hmm:

[Pass-A-Frozo]

The DMO project office would be simply given an agreement from Capability saying what they are to deliver. If the C-17 is chosen it will meet that. Purchases at the billions of dollars level would be directly approved by the Minister.

Numbskull: I'm quite happy for Australia to outsource the entire military if that's what the people want! It's a democracy. Why they don't use contractors for everything is that civilian organisations have a tendancy to not want to do something such as airdropping supplies or landing at an airfield where the risk from Surface-Air Fire is High. In fact if you can find one they will charge like a wounded bull (meaning the cheaper option would have been the in house option) due to monopolistic pricing. In fact for some of the short term heavy lift contracts, Australia could have BOUGHT the aircraft for the same amount as the charter fee! Also, Dangerous goods regulations prevent all our stuff that goes bang being carried on QANTAS aircraft. They do look at it.

[numbskull]

Point0five, the cost of providing a heavy maint facility for 4 C-17 aircraft would be extemely prohibitive and would be an even larger waste of taxpayer money.

Frozo I would argue that most of the places that ADF personell are likely to encounter Surface-Air fire, we shouldn't be there in the first place. I agree that the ADF should provide humanitarian aid to those less fortunate than us in South East Asia and the Pcific Islands. I am reassured by your statement that they do look outsourcing these operations although I have never heard of it happening.

[Point0Five]

That may well be so, but seeing as we're talking about spending tax payers dollars let's just entertain the idea of providing jobs for skilled Australian aviation workers by investing in the upper end of the market. After all, half the posts on PPRuNe are about investing in Australia, both at the National level and in industry and personnel.

[numbskull]

Quote "let's just entertain the idea of providing jobs for skilled Australian aviation workers by investing in the upper end of the market"

What planet are you on?

[The_Cutest_of_Borg]

Two billion for four aircraft?

Only in the military....

[scran]

Cutest of Borg:

The $2Bn is total project - so that means 4 actual aircraft, and also spares support, GSE, training, etc....



If you don't understand.....don't comment :hmm:

[Buster Hyman]

Don't forget the Steak Knives Scran!!!:} :ouch:

[ozbiggles]

Numbskull, your words
'I would argue that most of the places that ADF personell are likely to encounter Surface-Air fire, we shouldn't be there in the first place'.
What planet are you on? So anywhere that can shoot at an aircraft we shouldn't go? Anyone who has an manpad, RPG or AK-47 can do what ever they want where ever they want? Timor had a serious air threat possibilitiy, are you saying the ADF shouldn't have gone there?
As for the C-17 would you prefer we send all our equipment (and it used to be man power too until common sense prevailed) on the cheapest bidder? So everyone knows what we are up to, what we have and when and where it is?

[scran]

Buster - standard inventory........:rolleyes:



Don't forget the sheepskin seat covers you mean.......;)

[Captain Sand Dune]

[QUOTE][Anyone who has an manpad, RPG or AK-47 can do what ever they want where ever they want? Timor had a serious air threat possibilitiy, are you saying the ADF shouldn't have gone there?
/QUOTE]

Doesn't stop some looney with a rifle or (heaven forbid) something more lethal :eek: standing at the airfield boundary of any military airfield right here in Australia taking pot shots either. What then?:hmm:

The sheepskin seat covers are to tease the Kiwi exchange pilots:}

[ROKAPE]

Cutest of Borg:
The $2Bn is total project - so that means 4 actual aircraft, and also spares support, GSE, training, etc....
If you don't understand.....don't comment :hmm:
'scran' I think more TAXPAYERS should comment on things that are not understood then perhaps we may avoid expensive mistakes.
Have you had an innate understanding on the subject of every one of your 1500+ posts?
$2 billion is a LARGE amount of money to acquire four aircraft, no matter how you dress it up. I do agree with the requirement for ADF heavy lift.

[Captain Sand Dune]

I do agree with the requirement for ADF heavy lift.

But immediately prior..........


$2 billion is a LARGE amount of money to acquire four aircraft, no matter how you dress it up.

WTF!?!?!

A C17 ain't exactly a small aircraft. Any better options, or are we just going to limit ourselves to ill informed criticisms like the other instant experts here? .:hmm:
As previously mentioned, the cost quoted is not just for the aircraft alone.

[Pass-A-Frozo]

Don't forget an aircraft such as the C-17 isn't used just for terminal to terminal operations such as an airline with it's 747. The aircraft has to be capable of carrying all that stuff, and unloading / loading itself without GSE.
Then throw in military specific fitment such as EW. Anything Milspec and you can add a few zero's on the end. However, it's probably best to wait to see what the project actually includes (e.g. I know for a fact it includes mission planning systems etc too).

[Taildragger67]

Cutest of Borg:
The $2Bn is total project - so that means 4 actual aircraft, and also spares support, GSE, training, etc....
If you don't understand.....don't comment :hmm:

With respect, Scran old man, Borg's question isn't exactly unreasonable.

For us non-Ron types, when we read that XYZ airlines has placed an order for its first four 747s, say, we don't usually expect to read that they're paying in the billions for them.

So why is it that when it comes to military, four aircraft cost that much?

Yes I know the standard bumph about training, spares, etc. but doesn't my hypothetical airline also have to cop those costs?

I think I, Borg and others are just worried about the $2000 hammers and $1m khazis and someone saying 'Government contract = rip-off opportunity".

So how about helping us simple types "understand"?

[Buster Hyman]

But, if XYZ didn't have 747's to start with, then it probably would cost them billions. They just don't tell the punters.

I could be wrong (I was once before) but, doesn't the Govt. procurement mean that they include the entire package? XYZ would not readily admit the total cost due to their interests being none of their competitors business. XYZ's purchase may include spares, but does it include training, sims, hangars, additional staffing, GSE, etc

Just a thought...

[wessex19]

I know what you can get for $1 billion. 11 thirty-five year old helos with some glass in them that won't talk to its weapon systems. Hey, but everythings ok, just don't fly this billion dollar squadron at night or in IMC. How many A-4G's could 805 squadron had with a Billion bucks!!!!

So the C-17 seems like great value to me, I mean it might cost $2 billion dollars to get these bad boys in RAAF colours however they are a state of the art, and a proven platform. C-17 works!!!!!!

[scran]

Taildragger, Rokape,


See comments by Pass-a-frozo, Capt Sand Dune, Buster etc.


This is a big aircraft, capable of landing on semi-prepared (dirt) strips, in areas where nasty people shoot at you.......

The total cost (because we have to explain the FULL amount, not hide costs like Qantas etc as described by Buster) includes spares for a certain number of years, initial crew training (and probably continuity training in a simulator - so we don't have to buy one), special GSE for that aircraft, probably some maintenance support etc.

In other words, we have to buy enough "stuff" to support the aircraft.

Don't get me wrong - they are expensive - but ask the Brits what they think of theirs. Initially they "leased" them (for an amount close to the cost of buying them I understand) but have now decided that the aircraft is so good they will buy them (and one other they hope) outright.


And Wessex - thats what you get for buying second hand. Mind you, they Kiwis seem to get theirs to work................

[Gnadenburg]

Australian defence procurement practice deserves close scrutiny and more public interest should be welcomed- an apathetic, ill-informed public could induce a New Zealand syndrome ( granted environmental factors and gene pools come into play accross the Tasman aswell ).

Life support costs for a programme should be self-explanatory- a good close to home example of how these costs factor are recent Indonesian bargain basement purchases of Russian aircraft. Look cheap up front, paid for with a little hard currency and a little poultry trade, but come without appropriate support infrastructure or even weapons!

On the other side of the coin, what would the Singaporians get for two billion? Their procurement policy of buying off the shelf equipment, with hard negotiations gets them considerable bang-for-buck.

Hopefully, two billion will get the RAAF six of these wonderful aircraft. Their primary purpose aside, for the next 40 years they will be synonymous in the region for disaster relief and humanitarian operations; aswell as very useful aircraft in getting Australian and New Zealand ( free of charge ) expatriates out of harms way quickly.

As a short postscript, perhaps Flight Looey Frozo will be kept out of the civilian world a little longer by the C17. :}

[Pass-A-Frozo]

If you want to look at the "package" you have to wait until the project actually formally chooses the C-17, and announces it. This has not happened.

As for per unit cost, what would the cost of the A380 be per aircraft if we included all the runway works at Aussie airports, changes to terminals, cost of every aerobridge it will use, any new tools, training of all maint pers etc. That is what is included in Aussie defence projects. Otherwise you get what happens with the Indonesians - they buy something, it works fine for the first 6 months then 3/4's of their SQN sit idle , U/S on the tarmac - or they have submarines that are left as very expensive - incapable surface vessels.

I totally agree that defence procurement should be open to the eyes of the taxpayer (within reason - e.g. not announcing classified capability we purchase). Time will tell what this contract actually costs and what it includes.

Keep me in with the C17? Hmm.. interesting, might have to start being extra nice to DPO :} However more interestingly, I'll choose if I stay in based on pay and conditions etc. Notice the flying pay review outcome?

[griffinblack]

Gnadenburg,

Given your outspoken opinion that those in military should not comment on what transpires in industry (particularly from a financial point of view), I find it interesting that you feel qualified to comment on finances associated with military procurement and the consequent capability. Having said that, I recognise the validity of your comments and all the other posters, irrespective of their individual position.

Wessex19 or Scran,

Word is that the Seasprite may be scrapped – do you or any other naval folk know the likelihood of this?


The most recent addition of Australian Aviation quotes the unit cost of a C17 at A$220m. That would put four acft at A$880. I am not a procurement expert, but I understand project costs are normally double the acft costs- I am happy if anyone can correct that assumption. If that is the case, that would put the procurement for the strategic lift capability (for 4 acft) at A$1.75 – A$1.8 billion dollars.

Don’t necessarily be fooled by a “good deal”. If we do get a good deal, we are probably purchasing the capability on the cheap (without the associated equipment, training, documentation etc) or we will get screwed with the support costs – after all manufacturers don’t give away their stuff, they will always turn a profit, one way or another. We have recent projects as testament to that.

[Pass-A-Frozo]

I wish someone would tell me if they are about to scrap the Seasprite. I'm about to spend $400K on something to support the seasprite!! :eek: Although we shouldn't be locked in for some 6 months or so.

[Yikes]

Why should Australian taxpayers have to fork out billions of dollars to have the capability to invade other countries such as Iraq?
Because they deserve it

[jessie13]

I think a lot of people are looking for excuses for not getting the aircraft. After relying on Hercs for getting me around and the amount of hassles because the Herc is not quite big enough, the C-17 would be a good addition to the ADF. Just cast your minds back to when Australia has deployed overseas. When the Iroquois were bought back from the Siani, they used a C-5 because the didn't require disassembly to transport. When the Tampa crisis was happening, the only aircraft the could get to Christmas Island in a hurry in a Herc was a UH-1H without much disassembly. A Black Hawk would have taked a few more days to get there. How much easier would have it been to have our own C-17 to transport the Black Hawks to Pakistan and just role them out the back, spread the blades and fly. Herc transporting of our rotary wing assests is an ongoing and necessary requirement of our transport aircraft. Even a chook will fit into a C-17. With Tiger, MRH-90 and what ever the Navy gets to replace Sea King, the ability to get it anywhere in the world without much stuffing around is a bonus. Just imagine everything else we could transport around that doesn't fit into a Herc. We have relied upon chartering aircraft to do to many operational tasks for too many years. The C-17 is not only the best aircraft for it but long overdue. As for the $2b price tag, what a bargin. As someone else has already stated, that covers spares training etc. but also includes the follow up support through logistics, spares etc for the length of the project. There are a quite a few extras required to run a bi aircraft and $2b will just about cover it. The C-17 is not a tank transporter, it has the capability to do it but has the capability to do so much more that what we currently have.

[Gnadenburg]

Gnadenburg,
Given your outspoken opinion that those in military should not comment on what transpires in industry (particularly from a financial point of view), I find it interesting that you feel qualified to comment on finances associated with military procurement and the consequent capability. Having said that, I recognise the validity of your comments and all the other posters, irrespective of their individual position.

Well here is thread drift with a sanctimonious slant.

Outspoken? Frozo got involved in banter involving peoples' livelihood. Started out with a little rationality but in the end, by his own admission, took on a personal agenda- anti-unionist, obsolete Thatcherisms frankly.

An individual's opinion on the generic structure of the ADF, is these days, almost a political view. So it's not a matter of qualification of comment, but whether you believe, in this case, that C17's are an imperative component of the ADF's makeup, or just an expeditionary platform to reinforce Crusader like operations in far away lands.

Also, you shouldn't find it too interesting that I would wish to comment on defence procurement, when a few lines later you inquire as to whether an expensive navy helicopter project is to be scrapped.

[Pass-A-Frozo]

Outspoken? Frozo got involved in banter involving peoples' livelihood. Started out with a little rationality but in the end, by his own admission, took on a personal agenda- anti-unionist, obsolete Thatcherisms frankly

I think that is exactly what he is talking about. Take a look back at the masses of "Keep your nose out of it, you don't know what you are talking about because you don't work for QANTAS" presented simply because people didn't like what I said. It was all rational Gnad. All I presented was an alternate opinion to the "Lets all unify and strike for better pay" mob. It all comes down to ethical decision making models. The pro-union strikers have utilitarian ethics, whilst for the most part I have deontalogical ethics.

I wonder if the C-17 Project will include something like an option for 2 more etc?

[Keg]

Withi respect PAFie, it wasn't 'lets all unify and strike', it was 'lets all unite and actually say 'no' to crap conditions and push for better ones'. Significant difference.

I hope the C17 deal does include an expansion deal like the Wedgetail contact. I reckon that was a win for all concerned. :ok:

[Lord Snot]

Forget bitching about cost, take a look at the cockpit.

It's obviously a MAN'S machine. Take a look at the big prong (for those of you who are into prongs....), HUD, manly thrust levers unlike the pooncy, gay little things in the blunder-bus, AND.......... expecially for the sheep-shaggers to drool over.... sheepskin seat covers......nice.

Relax, Kiwiz, you still have your Aztruck to fly helen the ork in!

cockpit pic (http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0883380/M/)

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0883380/M/

[numbskull]

Ok so I will agree that the C-17 sounds like a good asset for the ADF and it would be very handy for deploying assets around Australia and the Pacific. My ignorance of things military has been discovered.

I'm just jealous that you guys get training on new equipment.

Frozo, thanks for broadening my horizons on things literary. I had never even heard of the word "deontalogical" let alone know what it meant.

For those as ignorant as I it means "Ethical theory concerned with duties and rights.

Life in Qantas is neither ethical nor theoritical and as such your deontological views do not apply to us.

[Pinky the pilot]

But life in Qantas does come with duties and rights, does it not Numbskull? As indeed it does almost anywhere for that matter.

You only live twice. Once when
you're born. Once when
you've looked death in the face.

[Chimbu chuckles]

I think the C17 is a good idea....money well spent.

Droning back and forth half away around the world in a C130J is just inefficient.

But I would like to see the F111s zero timed and kept on....I think JSF is just toys for boys...the threat argument doesn't stand up in my opinion...we need it's payload range for this region...not fancy pants new age technology designed to survive in a threat environment that never seems to eventuate....does anyone honestly believe the indons or a terrorist group will field technology that can defeat the Pig fangs out at 600kts and 200' on a dark night?

JSF is just toys for boys...C17 is a necesity.

[Pass-A-Frozo]

C-130J half-way around the world is only good for small deployments carrying stuff you can't take on QANTAS. :) You are right though. It's common for 2 or 3 C-130's to take some group on exercise etc., where a C-17 could have taken the lot.

[numbskull]

Yes pinky your right,

Please fwd your concerns about duties to the Qantas board of directors and your concerns about rights to the ACTU. Neither of which seem to take much notice of ethics or theory.

I hope you get your C17's with everything you need to operate effectively.

[Pass-A-Frozo]

I clearly think there are problems with acquisition. The Aussie C-130J fitment was substandard - The Italian C-130J comes with a Cappucino machine! :}

[Going Boeing]

The biggest problem is trying to maintain operations with such a small number of airframes. The Army found when they initially had four Chinooks that it was unable to make effective use of them. They then got permission from the Government for two more - maybe this is the RAAF's plan, get a foot in the door first.

Most airlines look at a minimum fleet size of 12-15 to be cost effective - less than that makes the cost of spares and manpower too prohibitive.

[Taildragger67]

Jessie,

You sure you'd be able to squeeze a Chook into a C17 without much activity with a spanner? It'd have to be the tightest of fits...

Anyway re my previous posts - not against getting C17s at all; in fact bring 'em on. My question was simply as to costs and the hope that the ADF is not paying over the odds.

Going Boeing has a good question - is four enough? If we do want to be able to move a meaningful force (ie. a couple of choppers or tanks, plus all spares and crew, over a reasonable distance) in anything approaching a hurry, shouldn't we plan on having more than one available at all times (I am - possibly ignorantly - assuming that a fleet of four is required to have at least one a/c available at all times given maint & statistical u/s). So I'm in favour of 6 or so, to further reduce the possibility of having to charter.

Anyone able to comment on the RAF's experience? I think they kicked off with four - they got any more now?

Also, what sqn are the C17s likely to be attached to? 33, 36 or 37? Re-form 38?

Thanks
TD67

[Taildragger67]

Actually Jessie, you might just be right:

C17 specs:
http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/c17/c17spec.htm

CH47 specs:
http://www.boeing.com/rotorcraft/military/ch47d/ch47dspec.htm

[Point0Five]

An individual's opinion on the generic structure of Qantas, is these days, almost a political view. So it's not a matter of qualification of comment, but whether you believe, in this case, that pilot remuneration is an imperative component of Qantas's makeup, or just an expeditionary platform to reinforce self-serving operations from a long gone reality.

[Pass-A-Frozo]

Indeed 0.050 .

So does anyone have the range handy of a C-17. Is Sydney - LA possible ? or can the C17 crews still look forward to a night in Hawaii. (I can never spell that!) Does that mean Kwaj is out of there , period!:eek:

Oh well.. It is usually bloody closed by the time a herc gets there anyway :) Great loadies have the beer in the cargo door.

[Keg]

I would have thought that SYD- anywhere whould have been possible with the joys if in flight refuelling! :E Of course, it depends on the A330 variant as to whether it can get enough gas on to support it going across! :eek:

[Buster Hyman]

Chimbu I'm a F111 fan as well, albeit from the couch! And, whilst I agree with you about "overkill" for regional threats argument, I am one of those critical of the RNZAF's lack of strike capability. The F111 may be king of the region, but can it be upgraded enough if deployed against a better equipped & trained adversary?

Just my 2 cents! (err...which when rounded down, equates to nothing anyway! :( )

[Aussie]

Taildregger67,

38 SQN doesnt need to be re-formed... it already exists.

Caribou, based in Amberley with a detachment in Townsville.

Aussie

[ruprecht]

PAF,

Ahh yes, good old Kwaj.

Karaoke and line dancing at the Yuk-yuk club with that never-ending popcorn machine; beers at the Caribou Lounge with all those ex-CIA types. The fun never ends. I remember them closing tower services exactly on the hour once, the fact that we were on 3 mile finals didn't seem to matter! At least the P-3 could get there from EDN, that new-fangled J model had to go through TVL when we deployed to Fincastle '02.

ruprecht.

[Captain Sand Dune]

Would also love to see the F111 continue to live on forever. Fact is is just won't happen unfortunately:sad:
The F111 already takes a sizeable portion of the defence budget just to keep it running.

[Gnadenburg]

An individual's opinion on the generic structure of Qantas, is these days, almost a political view. So it's not a matter of qualification of comment, but whether you believe, in this case, that pilot remuneration is an imperative component of Qantas's makeup, or just an expeditionary platform to reinforce self-serving operations from a long gone reality.


Touche!

But.........

Frozo's virginity with the civilian world needs constant guidance. His cop out rebuttle, where he questions the ethics of industrial strikes, was neither accurate ( as no one suggested this option ) and naively ignorant.

Qantas pilots are a carefully, choreographed, chosen few. Psychometric & personality testing ( which most people fail as evidenced by bitterness on these pages ) lean toward an odd character; where despite passionate loyalty never being reciprocated, their almost "deontological" morality has a strike option erased from the industrial quiver.



Frozo

How does a deontologist ( ? ) march to war on a Bush bandwagon?

[Gnadenburg]

Would also love to see the F111 continue to live on forever. Fact is is just won't happen unfortunately:sad:
The F111 already takes a sizeable portion of the defence budget just to keep it running.

Wonder if Boeing would do a deal on a small F15/C17 purchase?

[Pass-A-Frozo]

I'm trying ignore your misguided comments Gnad to prevent thread hijacking. Start a new thread and I'll explain all. By the way Gnad, I have worked in the civilian world (and no, before you make another assumption, not McDonalds during high school) - A lot of people on this site have made a lot of inaccurate assumptions about me simply because they don't like my opinion. You know everyone in the military didn't walk out of school straight into the recruiting office.

Strike out of the question?? I guess that would explain the flood of people posting "No, don't do it" on the townsville pilot industrial action thread??

A deontologist goes to war because he thinks it is the right thing to do. I thought the definition of the word would explain that.

Finacastle 02. That was Scotland?? I did the redeploy :)

As for air to air refuelling, The J model has all the plumbing etc for air to air refueling. They just didn't get the probe. Don't know why. I guess since they haven't even got externals on the beasts, I'm dreaming about them installing the probe.

[scran]

Taildragger - if your read one of my earlier posts - I answered that question about the RAF.

They started with 4 leased, and are now buying them outright, plus two more (I understand it's been reported open-source).

And Yes, a Chinook will fit. You have to remove the forward and aft rotors, hubs, gearboxes and any pylons, and store the blades and fwd pylon/gearbox inside the helo. Also still have room for a Landrover 110, the 15T crane to re-assemble the Helo, and 43 personnel.

I have a copy of the Boeing booklets on US Military Loads and Pacific Nations Military Loads Cargo Compartment Versatility books if anyone wants to have a look..........:E :E :E

[Going Boeing]

Gnads

A well placed source told me two years ago that Boeing had put an offer to the Oz Gov't for leased F15E's to be operated as an interim measure until the JSF enters operational service. I believe that the offer was rejected as it is cheaper to fit the F-18s and AP3C's with standoff weapons to supposedly do the required missions in the interim.

[Gnadenburg]

Gnads
A well placed source told me two years ago that Boeing had put an offer to the Oz Gov't for leased F15E's to be operated as an interim measure until the JSF enters operational service. I believe that the offer was rejected as it is cheaper to fit the F-18s and AP3C's with standoff weapons to supposedly do the required missions in the interim.


Would be interested in the relative costing of a Boeing commercially guaranteed, leased flightline of F15E's versus operationally capable F111's.

If our 500 million a year F111 budget, only delivers under a dozen war capable aircraft and reducing, a small number of F15's could affordably replace that capability and reduce expectations of the F18 fleet.

Would the structure of a RAAF equipped with F15/F18's be the lowest risk option until a replacement available?

[bob55]

1 & 6 SQN will become F18 squadrons when the F111 is retired, until the JSF arrives. 1 SQN will be at Williamtown and 6SQN will be at Tindal.

We are getting 4x C17s and they will be going to Amberley (via Richmond for a few years).

[Pass-A-Frozo]

You know if they plan on keeping any H's at this stage? Will they keep all H's at 36 and form a new SQN for the 17's?

[bob55]

C-17s are not replacing C130 capability - they are replacing contracted aircraft capability (like the Air Luxor A330).

If anything the C130H will be replaced by the C130J. But there's no hurry. I believe they are upgrading the C130H with new avionics.

[Pass-A-Frozo]

I thought they finished that a little while ago. More J's would be good though. A shame they let the option for 24? more expire.

[bob55]

I thought they finished that a little while ago. More J's would be good though. A shame they let the option for 24? more expire.

Yeah actually they have. Considering all the money they are spending on new aircraft (JSF, Wedgetail, A330 and now C17) I guess they have to draw the line somewhere.

[Taildragger67]

Aussie,

Thanks - I stand corrected ("No, you were wrong!"). Did I mean 35? I've been out of the country for a while but I seem to recall there was a rejig in ALG a few years back and I thought one of the sqns - 35 or 38 - got folded.

Anyway Scran, thanks - sorry I missed that in your post. I knew the RAF had converted to purchase but wasn't aware of the extra two they'd gone for. I also checked the Boeing website and agree that a C17 could swallow a Chook. Surprising; they just don't look that big in photos but they're bigger than a Starlifter.

Good luck Bs & Gs - with all those new types coming in, looks like you've got lots of new toys to play with!! The Pt Cook museum had better start making some room for new exhibits...

[Gnadenburg]

1 & 6 SQN will become F18 squadrons when the F111 is retired, until the JSF arrives. 1 SQN will be at Williamtown and 6SQN will be at Tindal.

We are getting 4x C17s and they will be going to Amberley (via Richmond for a few years).


So the RAAF will have 5 fighter squadrons with around 40 operational Hornets after F111 retires? Is that a lot of unneccessary bureaucracy or just keeping an unrealistic structure in place for 100 JSF's?

Anyone know why the government abandoned cruise missiles for the Orions yesterday? Political, technical or naval rivalry? On paper, seemed a great capability to have in terms of the aircraft's range and in context of a war on terror.

[bob55]

So the RAAF will have 5 fighter squadrons with around 40 operational Hornets after F111 retires? Is that a lot of unneccessary bureaucracy or just keeping an unrealistic structure in place for 100 JSF's?

Anyone know why the government abandoned cruise missiles for the Orions yesterday? Political, technical or naval rivalry? On paper, seemed a great capability to have in terms of the aircraft's range and in context of a war on terror.

Who says we will only have 40 operational units? F18s are about as common as 737s these days, we can easily 'borrow' a few to tie us over.

You might find they will disband 77 squadron.

And no, they are keeping 1 and 6 SQN operational to maintain a capability. We will have the A330s by then, so the F18 will be able to perform the same role. They could keep the squadrons for a few years without aircraft if they wanted to.

[kmagyoyo]

1 Sqn is the oldest RAAF unit and can't be disbanded for traditions sake, hence the reason it turns into a Hornet unit. Just before I left the talk was of 1 and 6 merging when the G model retires, thus pooling all the maint effort into keeping the C's flying...therefore I don't think 6 Sqn will exist as a seperate entitiy until the JSF arrives.

Bad time to be a Nav...you want fries with that? :(

[Point0Five]

Who says we will only have 40 operational units? F18s are about as common as 737s these days, we can easily 'borrow' a few to tie us over.
That's right, and all F/A-18s around the world share the same configuration and capabilities regardless of upgrades and model :hmm:

[Point0Five]

1 Sqn is the oldest RAAF unit and can't be disbanded for traditions sake
Worked for Point Cook.......

[kmagyoyo]

Ok flying unit :O

[FishHead]

The decision to off-load Pt Cook was reversed last year.

3 Nov 2005 - RAAF Base Point Cook is to remain in Defence ownership and management indefinitely the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence, the Hon Teresa Gambaro MP, announced today
Press Release (http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/Gambarotpl.cfm?CurrentId=5218)

[Gnadenburg]

Who says we will only have 40 operational units? F18s are about as common as 737s these days, we can easily 'borrow' a few to tie us over.

I thought the 40 aircraft F18 fleet were the numbers government were working with post F111 retirement. 40 aircraft! Further JSF delays - and possible British withdrawl - aswell as yesterdays decision not to equip Orions with the same long range missile as the F18's, puts a huge burden on a reduced strength RAAF.

If JSF delayed, where will respectable models of F18's come from? Won't the marines & navy be short of fighters too? Unsuitable, early model Canadian F18's in warm storage, perhaps, all that is available.

The Boeing F15E lease-deal, expensive at the time, but cheap and low risk in the long run. All in the context that we have the biggest mouth in the region. ;)

[Taildragger67]

All in the context that we have the biggest mouth in the region. ;)

We already do; it's just that it's attached to the smallest man...

[Lord Snot]

All those Hornets in storage aren't much help at short-notice if they are not equipped with the same kit as the existing fleet.

The new, networked ADF requires all the toys to have the same bluetooth gizmos so they can talk to each other, the way the Tiger will be able to talk to the Abrams, for example.

And if they have other kit, which is likely, then the drivers have to be trained.

A bit different to the case of having a few "readies" in the hangar, needing only the bungs removed and a quick pull-through.

[Cougar]

RUPRECHT

The only reason the "Fandangle J" would have to go via TVL on the way to Kwaj is because the P3 LOGO's can't accept that 25000 lbs means just that, and not 30, or 35000 lbs of cargo!!

[nannas_new_hip]

DEFENCE MINISTER TO ANNOUNCE GOVERNMENT’S PREFERRED OPTION FOR HEAVY LIFT AIRCRAFT



WHAT:Announcement of the Australian Government’s preferred Heavy Lift Aircraft option to be considered for the Australian Defence Force.

WHO: Minister for Defence, the Hon Dr Brendan Nelson, accompanied by Chief of the Defence Force, Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston, Chief of the Air Force, Air Marshal Geoff Shepherd and other senior Defence personnel.

WHEN: Friday, 3 March 2006

Media should arrive by 1.30pm for a 2:00pm start.

WHERE: RAAF Base Richmond

Percival Street, Richmond, NSW

[Pass-A-Frozo]

RUPRECHT
The only reason the "Fandangle J" would have to go via TVL on the way to Kwaj is because the P3 LOGO's can't accept that 25000 lbs means just that, and not 30, or 35000 lbs of cargo!!

The usual response is "25,000 POUNDS?? I thought you meant kilograms. "
:uhoh:

[Pass-A-Frozo]

DEFENCE MINISTER TO ANNOUNCE GOVERNMENT’S PREFERRED OPTION FOR HEAVY LIFT AIRCRAFT



WHAT:Announcement of the Australian Government’s preferred Heavy Lift Aircraft option to be considered for the Australian Defence Force.

WHO: Minister for Defence, the Hon Dr Brendan Nelson, accompanied by Chief of the Defence Force, Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston, Chief of the Air Force, Air Marshal Geoff Shepherd and other senior Defence personnel.

WHEN: Friday, 3 March 2006

Media should arrive by 1.30pm for a 2:00pm start.

WHERE: RAAF Base Richmond

Percival Street, Richmond, NSW

Gee.. I wonder what it will be given you can see from the road a big C-17 sitting at air movements. :ok:

[nannas_new_hip]

http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/NelsonMintpl.cfm?CurrentId=5449

Signed, sealed and delivered (well, one, by the end of the year!) Will be good to see them with a RAAF roundel!

So, a new squadron stood up or integrated into 36 or 37?

[Taildragger67]

Nannas,

Caption for the following photo is "Dr Brendan Nelson addresses the aircrew of Number 36 Squadron who will receive the C-17 Globemaster":
http://www.defence.gov.au/media/download/2006/Mar/20060303b/20060303raaf8184483_0044_lo.jpg




Frozo,

Are those load-test dummies still up the other end near AMTDU?

Time for a new one now.

Good to see. Shoulda been more.

[Keg]

What a great move. I'd bet money that they'll end up with more than four! :ok:

[Pass-A-Frozo]

They still will have the H model. Nothing announced about scrapping them.
Someone told me they were looking at moving the H models to 37 sqn and making a "super" sqn.

Well.. better get back to updating my career preference form :E

[Point0Five]

The Defence Minister's comments provide quite an insight into both the C-17 and future direction of some RAAF bases:
http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/NelsonMinTranscripttpl.cfm?CurrentId=5450

[Point0Five]

So frozo, you think it would be good to move the Herc's (C130'H') to 37. Well then, that will give 37 sqn a tac capability!!!
More like providing a handbrake to 37SQN's tac capability.