View Full Version : Raf C-17
sweetiepie
5th Dec 2007, 09:27
Can anybody confirm when the fifth RAF C-17 is due into service or is it already in service?.
Bo Nalls
5th Dec 2007, 09:42
From Hansard Mon 3 Dec 2007
The Secretary of State for Defence (Des Browne): The Ministry of Defence recognises the importance of a robust strategic airlift capability to operational deployments. On 26 July 2007 I announced our intention to procure a sixth C-17 Globemaster aircraft. I am pleased to announce that the Ministry of Defence has now signed a contract with Boeing, totalling some £130 million, for the purchase of the sixth C-17 aircraft to be delivered in 2008. This procurement will deliver a significant increase in our capability. The four existing C-17 aircraft already make a critical contribution to sustaining current UK world wide operations, both in providing a general airlift capability and in lifting oversize items. The additional C-17 will join the existing fleet of four aircraft and a fifth aircraft which will be delivered in May 2008.
sprucemoose
5th Dec 2007, 10:21
A collector's item I know, but I think Swiss Des is wrong on the delivery date for UK-5 - Boeing will actually hand it over next February.
You can see a couple of piccies of the aircraft in completion here:
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/12/05/220076/pictures-uks-fifth-boeing-c-17-nears-completion.html
Moose :cool:
Gainesy
5th Dec 2007, 10:37
If the number of aircraft delivered equalled the number of times they'd announced it, we'd have two squadrons of them by now.:rolleyes:
South Bound
5th Dec 2007, 10:54
So what are they going to call the fifth and 6th aircraft. ZZ175 was already allocated to the golf buggy Boeing 'donated' on delivery of the first ac....
mystic_meg
5th Dec 2007, 12:09
So what are they going to call the fifth and 6th aircraft
..How about: 'C-17' or even 'Globemaster III?':E
sprucemoose
5th Dec 2007, 12:48
Gainesy,
To be fair to the MoD, they announced in July that they would be buying a sixth aircraft, and this week they merely confirmed that they have actually signed the contract for it.
Is it just me, or does £130 million seem a bit steep for a C-17? I thought they went for about $180 million!
Let's hope there will be a few more to follow UK-6!
Gainesy
5th Dec 2007, 13:56
To be fair to the MoD
Nah, **** 'em.:)
Wader2
5th Dec 2007, 14:04
Southbound, it would not be (or should not be) ZZ.
The letters increment every year. Now of course there is a problem as we only have 24 letters in our alphabet.:}
Not sure why it was ZZ when the current top appears to be ZK.
Regie Mental
5th Dec 2007, 15:18
..How about: 'C-17' or even 'Globemaster III?
Or Globemaster C1?
Tyres O'Flaherty
5th Dec 2007, 15:55
''Let's hope there will be a few more to follow UK-6!''
As I understood it, all aircraft to be produced are pretty much spoken for, then it's going out of production
Found this via google on some geeky site. It was also on a previous post about A400 or A330 tail allocations.:rolleyes:
http://www.wolverhamptonaviationgroup.co.uk/out_of_sequence.htm
It appears we have ZZ's for 10 (yes 10) C-17's. Keep 'em coming.
Yes, I am sad
MDJETFAN
5th Dec 2007, 16:43
The word around Long Beach is that another USAF order for 12 is in the offing.
herkman
5th Dec 2007, 20:16
My understanding is that 5 and 6 are owned versus 1 to 4 which are leased.
Is it therefore the intent that the last two airframes will be fully operational, without any of the leasing restrictions.
Must be paying a good profit on the leased ones, as you got a golf buggy, but we did not.
Nice to see more frames arriving, we too had heard the rumour that you may get up to 10.
That would be a smart move, even if brownbottle says he cannot afford it.
Regards
Col
Magnersdrinker
5th Dec 2007, 23:17
Im sure the Australians and the Canadians have also bought them too.
A mighty fine jet indeed and liney freindly as well.
GreenKnight121
6th Dec 2007, 04:30
My understanding is that 5 and 6 are owned versus 1 to 4 which are leased.No, the first 4 have been purchased (actually, will be purchased when their lease runs out next year).
See this thread (especially post #6):
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=285661&highlight=C-17%2C+purchase%2C+lease
That's excellent news; an extra C17 will certainly help. But this certainly shows what can be done when you have to.
Hansard - 20 Feb 07 (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/cgi-bin/newhtml_hl?DB=semukparl&STEMMER=en&WORDS=ellwood%20c17&ALL=ellwood%20c17&ANY=&PHRASE=&CATEGORIES=&SIMPLE=&SPEAKER=&COLOUR=red&STYLE=s&ANCHOR=70220w0010.htm_spnew8&URL=/pa/cm200607/cmhansrd/cm070220/text/70220w0010.htm#70220w0010.htm_spnew8)
Quote:
Mr. Ellwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans there are (a) to order and (b) to lease additional Boeing C17 Globemaster aircraft. [119885]
Mr. Ingram [holding answer 8 February 2007]: The Department announced in August 2006 that it had signed a contract to purchase the four C-17 aircraft it currently leases from Boeing at the end of the current contract in 2008. At the same time, we also placed an order for a fifth C-17 aircraft that is expected to be delivered in 2008. Beyond this, the Department currently has no plans to order or lease additional C-17s.
And then they ordered #6 in July, and just signed the contract a few days ago... so "no plans" can certainly become "new plans" at any time.
Yes, it certainly shows that Defence Procurement can be really fast and smart when:
The political will exists
The Treasury agrees
The suppliers are capableShame about FSTA, MRA4, and several others!
beerdrinker
6th Dec 2007, 06:40
A question about the RAF C17s. When the RAAF recently bought C17s they went for the bog standard USAF version (including paint) straight off the production line so delivery was expedited.
Are the RAF C17s bog standard USAF versions or did we, in true British fashion, have special modifications (BAC111, Trident, Tristar) that added cost? (OK I know those examples were civilian aircraft but I am sure the MOD is equally as guilty-Chinook Mk3)
Pontius Navigator
6th Dec 2007, 07:21
No, the first 4 have been purchased (actually, will be purchased when their lease runs out next year).
The lease was a bit like a car lease. 10000 miles per year per airframe and 10p per mile excess payment for any miles over that taken off the exchange value or added to the final lump sum payment.
I guess it became readily apparent that it would cost more than a new aircraft in penalties when we came to do a part-exchange deal with Slippery Sam the Used Car Man.
Seriously, when new and Afg kicked off, there was an honest attempt to restrict usage. Used for loads that would not fit in a Herc etc. That soon fell by the wayside -weeks not months.
South Bound
6th Dec 2007, 07:34
Aircraft were standard off the production line, not sure what we have done since. Interesting question about 'ownership' enabling us to use the full capability of the aircraft as on intro to Service the Safety Case (fairly topical at the moment) only covered a fairly basic capability set and was most definitely Strat AT-biased. Again, not sure if this has been expanded during Service to date, but I imagine QQ will be only too happy to get involved expanding the envelope.
Pontius Navigator
6th Dec 2007, 07:41
South Bound, following the car lease analogy, wasn't there a bit of a fuss when it was used for some off road driving in hot and sandy places?
South Bound
6th Dec 2007, 08:02
Might have been a titchy bit outside the bounds of the CDW, yes!
Gainesy
6th Dec 2007, 08:07
I imagine QQ will be only too happy to get involved
:uhoh:God Forbid. If it ain't broke...
Green Flash
6th Dec 2007, 08:45
Are the RAF C17s bog standard USAF versions
I understand that even the RAF crews flying suits are USAF (C-17 fleet) issue jobs?
South Bound
6th Dec 2007, 09:14
Certainly used to be - one of the more lunatic QQ inputs to the programme...
Spit the Dog
6th Dec 2007, 11:26
In answer to the original question, UK-5 arrives at BZZ 2nd week in April.
Flying suits still are US type. Gets my vote. Much more comfortable than the Brit ones. Bit of extra room for my 'fuller figure'!! Don't you agree Spit?
Green Flash
6th Dec 2007, 11:59
Bit of extra room for my 'fuller figure'!!
USAF issue pies, then?!;)
Wader2
6th Dec 2007, 12:30
Flying clothing to type is not a new thing.
E3 oxygen system is a pigs compared with the British masks.
The RNZAF had two completely different sets of AEA. The guys flying the StrikeMaster wore RAF kit top to toe even making the flying boots in NZ. The A4 jocks wore US kit.
IIRC the same applied to 74 Sqn F4J.
The argument is that the AEA was designed to function in the aircraft - pocket snagging, toe crunching etc.
Wonder what gloves they wear?
moosemaster
7th Dec 2007, 11:44
£130m includes the upgrade of the existing 4 frames to block 19 I believe.
As for bog standard; because they were leased the MoD were forbidden by Boeing and US DoD to make any significant alterations to the frames because the initial intention was for them to be blended into the USAF fleet at the end of the lease period.
This nice little loop-hole also forbid QQ from getting involved, thus the frames could be brought 'online' in record time. From signature to in service in 366 days iirc.
The limitations imposed on the operation of the a/c were not hard and fast rules, and were relaxed significantly as events and expectations progressed. In fact I am led to believe the USAF were more than happy with things that were done with UK frames because it allowed them to hasten their own task diversification processes.
DuvetTechnician
7th Dec 2007, 12:59
The IPT, having some foresight, reserved all the ZZ17* series at the time of the initial lease. Hence, despite the golf buggy, I suspect ZZ175 and ZZ176 will be the next frame names (officially at least).
South Bound
7th Dec 2007, 14:11
Bah Humbug on the naming front!
As for commonality with the US Fleet, I can't see that changing no matter what QQ say. It would just be outrageously expensive to do anything but maintain and operate our aircraft in the US-way. I figure we will be flying the US standard of aircraft to US procedures for some time to come. Personally I don't have an issue with this and can see no reason to want to change.
I wonder with the change in govt in Australia could we in a few years be acquiring some part used C17's from them?
Just as long as we don't get the aircrew who've 'defected' back as part of the deal :}
herkman
9th Dec 2007, 22:12
I do not think so, rumour mill says more frames not less.
Rumour mill also says C27's and additional short C130J's
Got any more spare crews
Col
Guzlin Adnams
10th Dec 2007, 09:19
Useful platform the C27........a sqs worth for the RAF could come in handy.:)
BackfromIraq
10th Dec 2007, 19:10
They Comp'd me back the other day and the comment from the Captain was that 'the reason these have been so successful is that QQ haven't been allowed anywhere near them. When QQ said they'd have to trial UK flying suits with them, the powers that be said "Okay, we'll use US kit."'
Superb guys, one and all, turned themselves inside out to get us home, and were only hindered by ASCOT. Nothing but praise for them.
Speaking of USAF restrictions......
1) When will they be able to do simulated 3 engine work (Thinking IRT's here..)
2) How bout AAR ?
Pontius Navigator
10th Dec 2007, 22:27
FFP, borrow a jet from 216 and do it for real? :)
Ha ! Real man's AAR..........
I used to agree on the probe / boom issue but now I think anyone that's done Night KC-135 receiving may differ. That seperates the men from the boys .....
k1rb5
11th Dec 2007, 08:59
I was chatting to a 135 boom operator in the Deid a few weeks ago who'd had his window covered in hyd fluid (which by all accounts isn't uncommon) on his last flight. He said he just points the boom in the rough direction and hopes for the best.:eek::\:eek::\:eek::\:eek::\:eek:
Equilibrium
12th Dec 2007, 15:50
I am sure that QQ will love to take on the refuelling trials:rolleyes:
Oh no they cant can they? phew that was close. :D:D:D
RAF prepares to receive C-17 number 5, number 6 being assembled for June 2008 delivery.
[Link (http://www.defencetalk.com/news/publish/airforce/RAF_Prepares_to_Receive_Fifth_C-17_Aircraft100015167.php)]
Flight International: Boeing predicts 'good year' for at-risk C-17 transport (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/02/21/221747/singapore-2008-boeing-predicts-good-year-for-at-risk-c-17.html)
.......Discussions have also taken place with the UK, which will take delivery of its fifth of six currently contracted aircraft on 22 February, with the nation believed to be interested in acquiring two further examples to boost its in-service fleet......
VinRouge
2nd Mar 2008, 10:30
Sweet! an we have some more Js as well please?
At RIAT 2001 (Grotty Cotty :) ) I asked a C-17 sqn ldr about the reported restrictions on use.
He hotly denied that there were any :hmm:
FormerFlake
3rd Mar 2008, 18:50
The restricitons were more to do with time and money than the USAF. It was hard enough keeping all the crews current and the alloted crews NVG qualified without any extra training burden. With more frames DTMA will just find more work for the C17s and they will continue to pick up VC10 and Tristar tasks as they break down etc.
harrogate
3rd Mar 2008, 20:01
RAF prepares to receive C-17 number 5, number 6 being assembled for June 2008 delivery.
(First four to be de-commissioned in July 2008.)
parapauk
3rd Mar 2008, 20:37
er, No :)
Magnersdrinker
3rd Mar 2008, 23:32
I think we should have bought some C5 Galaxies as well , no particular reason I just like them as they are huge ass mofos !! ;)
spanners123
4th Mar 2008, 00:47
Magnersdrinker,
Nice one mate, pure genius, ds and I liked that one!:ok::ok:
Pops556
4th Mar 2008, 08:19
I think we should have bought some C5 Galaxies as well , no particular reason I just like them as they are huge ass mofos !! ;)
:}:D
The way things are going with the 'retained numbers' game, we could buy a couple or three and pack the whole Air Force up into them and move lock,stock amd two smoking barrels to wherever we're next needed...:hmm: