MOD signs contract for 7th C-17 Globemaster

[GreenKnight121]

4 Jan 10

Contracts have been signed for the RAF's seventh C-17 strategic transport aircraft to increase the size of the fleet that has seen heavy usage during recent operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

.....

The new C-17 aircraft will join the rest of the fleet at RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire when it enters service with the RAF in March 2011 after it has been fitted with self-protection measures.
This additional C-17 is part of the £900m package of enhancements for operations over the next three years announced by the Defence Secretary, Bob Ainsworth, in December 2009.
Mr Ainsworth said:
"Afghanistan remains our top priority and this extra C-17 represents a major contribution to the strategic airlift directly supporting our troops in Afghanistan.
"Since its entry into service in 2001, the UK's C-17 fleet has provided outstanding performance in RAF service in support of operations, humanitarian relief and routine tasks.
"The additional aircraft will allow our strategic transport capacity to be expanded during a period of intensive coalition operations."



Ministry of Defence | Defence News | Equipment and Logistics | MOD signs contract for additional C-17 Globemaster (http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/EquipmentAndLogistics/ModSignsContractForAdditionalC17Globemaster.htm)

[Laird 'o' Balmullo]

Half-way towards the 14 we should have bought in 1998!

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

For the benefit of any Treasury life-forms that may read these pages; good news. Has Adml Stanhope mentioned how pleased he is to be funding it?

As I remember it, the doctrine in ’98 was that any shortfall in strategic transport capacity could be made good by chartering from gash commercial assets. I believed that it was bollox then as well.

I have a confession to make. After years of railing against the fashion for tautology in the naming of, particularly American built, aircraft types, I must admit to an advantage. Indeed, identifying the Mc Donnell Douglas C-17 Globemaster does differentiate it from the Douglas C-124 Globemaster and the Douglas C-74 Globemaster.

[Guzlin Adnams]

Report: Airbus Ready to Ditch A400M - Defense News (http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4442571&c=EUR&s=AIR)

Posturing perhaps? :hmm:

[Ginger Beer]

Hopefully we'll be able to man the new frame as I've been enquiring about a C17 LM OCU slot and apparently [the Americans who run] the courses are full to capacity and cannot afford us more places as all RAF slots are full until 2012.

What is the crew/airframe ratio on 99 Sqn ?

Ginge

[ewaste]

I’ll believe it when I see the aircraft sitting on the apron at Brize. I agree with Laird 'o' Balmullo we should have ordered a decent number a while ago, although that would have needed money and foresight. :hmm:

[Sgt.Slabber]

Guzlin,

Posturing...?

Airbus President and CEO Thomas Enders told a group of directors last month he "no longer believed in pursuing the program" and had begun to prepare for it to be terminated, the Financial Times Deutschland reported. Lists of engineers to be transferred from the A400M to the development of two other key aircraft, the A380 superjumbo and the A350, have been drawn up, the newspaper added.

Maybe... but maybe Enders will find himself being "retired", and sooner rather than later.

If "Hairbrush" do scrub A400M, do we get our money back?

[VinRouge]

What money? It should be payment on delivery! :}

It was a commercial contract remember?

[US Herk]

I have a confession to make. After years of railing against the fashion for tautology in the naming of, particularly American built, aircraft types, I must admit to an advantage. Indeed, identifying the Mc Donnell Douglas C-17 Globemaster does differentiate it from the Douglas C-124 Globemaster and the Douglas C-74 Globemaster.
Ah, yes. And the British tautology is so much better where a GR1 may be a Harrier, Jaguar, or Tornado! :}

[herkman]

Hi Ernie, hope that all is well for you and yours.

regards

Col

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Well, now you mention it, no it isn't. The British fashion is my prime source of irritation on the broad subject but, as Christmas and its spirit is so recent, I thought I would spare you that rant. :ok:

[9.81m/s/s]

Ginger Beer,

Join the very long queue.............

[WE992]

Whilst one additional C-17 is great news, its sad we have to resort to buying them one at a time when the likes of the UAE which currently has an insignificant transport force can go out and purchase 6 straight off!

[Biggus]

I thought that I read somewhere that the 7th C-17 won't actually provide any extra capability. Instead the C-17 fleet will continue with the same level of tasking, but the flying hours planned will now be spread between 7 airframes rather than 5 or 6, and the fleet will subsequently have a longer life before it needs to be retired and/or replaced.

[herkman]

Perhaps some thoughts to stimulate more thinking.

The RAAF sent the crews for the first airplane, I forget the figures but it was not very high to the USAF for conversion.

Also the USAF sent at least one instructor pilot to Australia but to my knowledge we have done all further traing and conversions down here,

The story that I have heard is that Boeing does the initual training of Loadmasters in the facility at Amberley, but the actual flying training is done with the operating unit which is 36 Squadron. None of the Loadmasters had previous C17 experience and most appear to have come from the C130H and J models.

There is at least one captain at 36 Squadron who was converted to the C17 whilst on exchange duty with the USAF.

Perhaps in the case of training for Loadmasters introduction of exchange LM posts could resolve your lack of training slots in the USA.

Now that should help bring on the airman aircrew discusion.

Seriously there is no reason from an operational point of view, of why NCO aircrews cannot be exchanged.

Just a thought.

Regards

Col