RAF C-17 Purchases & Upgrades

[ORAC]

RAF's 007 (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3ad8455868-379d-43e6-8a15-efc88b34a7eb&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest)

London Unofficially Eyes Eighth Boeing C-17 (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/asd/2010/11/18/02.xml&headline=London%20Unofficially%20Eyes%20Eighth%20Boeing%20C-17)

[Tallsar]

Seems to me when financial matters become clearer in a couple of years, and maybe we sell off those bank shares for megabucks, there maybe scope to go for the 8th! T'was always an aspiration given likely utilisation of the fleet, so now the Js are going early, and 8th would add back a positive lift delta. On the other hand....keeping some of the Js instead might prove a case worth making.

[Aynayda Pizaqvick]

We'll need the 8th when we retire the Js early and then wait for the A400 to become Operational 10 years late.
Any one else notice the big jump in lift capability from a Chinook to an A400? Is there any other Air Force in the world that does not have anything in its arsenal to fill this gap?

[Tallsar]

Looks like RAF 2020 will have a unique AT capability then.....ie none!!!:{ Tragic as the loss of GR9, MRA4 and Sentinel (and much fewer Tiffies, Tonkas and Daves let us not forget) wil be.....the demise of the Albert will probably have more day to day effect than most of these losses. Still there must be someone in the wings (aka Freddie Laker lookilike) with some cash who could set up a good rent-a-truckie service using what will still be a young fleet to fill the inevitable UOR thats gonna appear when we get into the next war X000 miles away - and that incudes anything going on down South where you always need at least twice as many given the distance....now there's a thought ...lots of bright orange "Easy-Fats".....mmmm where's my bank manager.....

As for A400........there's another fine mess TB got us into.......

[Could be the last?]

So why did the AM go to the US to collect the ac? And probably a whole load of hangars on........

[RumPunch]

I think the government is stupid to go further in the A400M project , an overweight overpriced elephant , would it not be prudent to extend the Hercs a bit longer and buy a few more C17s, after all come 2014 we will be out of Afghan with perfect capability from the C17 to cover the odd sub rescue, natural disaster etc.

The A400M is another troubled Airbus with lack of funding , or is it because we are tied into another silly contract

[Aynayda Pizaqvick]

Yes it would be very prudent and is obvious to everyone on the front line.
Hence we wont do it.

[JTIDS]

How many of the armoured vehicles we've now bought will fit into a Hercules? Isn't the sad truth that we need something like the A400 and C-17's for the really big stuff!

[Uncle Ginsters]

JTIDS,
I don't really get your point?!? The nature of conflict has moved on from that which can be fought in the Pinkies et al that fit on the Herc. Yes, it is sad that our boots on the ground need that protection, but that's how it is.

If that weren't the case, then the increased payload and range of both is surely still enticing over old Albert?

[billynospares]

A lot of talk of retiring the J early here. I think at the current op tempo they will all be shagged by then anyway. It just makes sense to forget A400m and buy more C17 and Hercs ! Makes sense though so we wont be doing that :=

[The Equivocator]

JTIDS

I think you were making the point that Albert isn't big enough to carry a whole bunch of stuff we've bought to protect our ground forces?

Uncle G is quite correct, Afghanistan (& Iraq) set a template for how our enemies will operate against us in the med-term future, be that co-in, state on state, or proxy inter-state warfare.

Our technology is difficult to defeat head-on, but stick a big dumb bomb by the side of a road and eventually you'll send body bags home and erode our will to fight. If you assume you need boots on the ground at some point in a campaign, then you need to protect them. You can do this by lots of means, but protected mobility is one method. If you want to move this by air, you need something bigger than Albert.

Eventually of course, if you follow this to the end, you'll need something bigger than A400M (and eventually C17 I guess!) but that will be some time. A400M fills that gap, until something changes!

Sadly, unless Lockheed Martin have invented a Tardis, Albert is a busted flush. Sad as that is to me as a Herk driver...:(

[VinRouge]

Dont know where the anti-A400m hysteria is coming from on here, personally, I would love the opportunity to fly the beast.

Unfortunately, the Herc is a legacy piece of kit. Dont get me wrong, its an awesome aircraft (over 1300 hours on the J myself) and the Mk5s are a great SF platform, but when it cant shift a lot of the kit we are using, its time to move on.

Its worth noting however, that I hear rumours the 400m wont be able to shift FRES (if it happens) in a single piece, it will require 2 aircraft, which makes the C-17 the main contender for fleet expansion in the near future if we want to have better capability.

The problem we have currently is though we dont have any means of inserting these new all singinging and dancing vehicles in a tactical manner, be that unprepared strip or airdrop. This is something they need to look at if they are looking at phasing the J out. That will surely mean a europe based sim for the C-17 and expansion in capability at some stage, maybe not straight away, but in a decades time I can imagine it happening.

[The Equivocator]

VR

Depends on which bit of (what was) FRES you mean...

A400M was never scheduled to carry the light tank variant (what was known as MA-med armour) which was always planned to come in in the mid forty tons with armour, bullets and gas.

You'd be surprised what the difference in weight is between the light armoured and the full armoured versions. I await correction, but not sure that the Mastiffs et al in theatre use the full armour fits; the reactive armour isn't on but the bar armour is? This is all open source by the way!

A400M is well capable of carrying the other versions. Not sure you'd be able to drive off and fight, but you couldn't do that off a C17 either and you'd have no chance of putting that weight on to a strip off a UK C17...:E

Don't think the airdrop of 30t plus is a realistic option in a single load...!

[VinRouge]

US have just trialed 77,000 lb airdrop off a single platform from C-17.

Aircrew breaks C-17 record with heaviest airdrop (http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123201354)

but you couldn't do that off a C17 either and you'd have no chance of putting that weight on to a strip off a UK C17...http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/evil.gifThis is my earlier point; they are going to have to expand the capabilities of C-17 if they want to get the max out of it; the question is, will they risk such a valuable platform for an extension incapability?

In the meanwhile, I think we should eagerly await the A400m, its a new frame, 0 hours and by the sounds of it, we arent going to be polishing Turds with the J like we did for years with the K.

[A and C]

Quote: A400M project , an overweight overpriced elephant

Please can you tell us the grounds for holding this opinion, I am sure if you can give us some numbers to back up your statment it would be enlightening for all of us.

[Two's in]

Please can you tell us the grounds for holding this opinion, I am sure if you can give us some numbers to back up your statment it would be enlightening for all of us.

Given the caveat that you can't believe everything you hear or read (good or bad) it seems some people in Germany at least are of that same opinion. Every new aircraft goes through this, it will either prove itself in service or not. If it's too late, the opportunitiny might not be there.


On 9 January 2009, EADS announced that the first delivery has been postponed until at least 2012. EADS also indicated that it wanted to renegotiate "certain technical characteristics" of the aircraft EADS has long maintained the first deliveries would begin three years after the A400M's first flight. The German newspaper Financial Times Deutschland has closely followed the A400M program and reported on 12 January 2009 that the aircraft is overweight by 12 tons and may not be able to achieve a critical performance requirement, the ability to airlift 32 tons. Sources told FTD at the time that the aircraft could only lift 29 tons, which is insufficient to carry a modern armored infantry fighting vehicle (like Puma). The FTD report prompted the chief of the German Air Force to say, "That is a disastrous development," and could delay deliveries to the Luftwaffe until 2014. The Initial Operational Capability (IOC) for the Luftwaffe is delayed at least until 2017. This leads the political planning to potential alternatives in the shape of a higher integration of European airlift capabilities. The OCCAR reminded the participating countries that they can terminate the contract before 31 March 2009. On 29 March 2009, Airbus CEO Thomas Enders told Der Spiegel magazine that the program may need to be abandoned without changes.

[Aim between the eyes]

"A400M is well capable of carrying the other versions. Not sure you'd be able to drive off and fight, but you couldn't do that off a C17 either and you'd have no chance of putting that weight on to a strip off a UK C17..."

You can drive off and fight a Mastiff of any variant from a C17. Most Mastiffs weigh approx 40k lbs. They invariably carry two at a time (complete) and they do drive off at the other end (once the chains have been removed!). What sort of strip are we talking about? Dont forget the requirement of the C17 was to land with an MBT (M1 Abrams) on board and on a strip of 3000ft long by 90ft wide. Not bad for such a big girl! She's not that much more expensive than an A400M ($200M each and counting) either, especially with all the delays/contract re-negotiations... In fact we are already about cost even, so which one would you prefer?

[OmegaV6]

Edited .. erroneous .. :)

[Aim between the eyes]

OmegaV6

"May I point out to nearly all the above that we did not, and can not, "buy" C17s. They are leased from the US government, and congress had to give approval before that happened, and has to give further approval for any more we would ask to lease.

They also have the right, as the lessor, to tell us where and when we can use them."

Absolute twaddle mate. The first 4 we did lease from Boeing not the US government. We have since purchased those aircraft and 3 more besides (once number 7 arrives either just before or just after xmas). I would suggest that just like your moniker (a defunct car) that your information is very much out of date. Plenty of open source info online to prove that too.

[VinRouge]

To be fair, C-17 cant do unprepared strip work of the sort A400M can.

Its a small price to pay IMHO, when as you state above, the cost differential for a400M and C17.

Would like to see a comparison of operating cost. Also interesting to note with QE2 about to set sail in the US of A, the UK "price" of C-17 is coming down quite nicely at the moment. If we dont bother with another reinflation in the UK, we might even be able to get the unit cost down to £125 mill a pop! :ok:

Still want a go on A400M though!

[500N]

VinRouge

Can you expand on this comment please.

"To be fair, C-17 cant do unprepared strip work of the sort A400M can."

Are you saying the A400M can land on unpreprared dirt whereas the C-17 can't ?

Thanks

[herkman]

That is absoletely incorrect.

Down here there are photos of both aussie and US C17's operating from dirt fields.

When we are comparing the C130 normal stretch models, please bear in mind that the C130 was designed to haul what the US Army had in its inventory in 1953. So we are not comparing apples with apples.

As the RAAF and RAF have millions of hours experience on the C130 and there is only hundreds of hours on the A400, none of which have been in service use. A 400 has a long way to go to get to that standard and I really hope that it can do the job but comparing a C130 with a A400 is a bit like comparing a C47 and a C130.

I suspect that the RAF/RAAF combination of flying hours would be around the 5M
mark and then when you consider all the other operators in the world it would greatly exceed the few hours that the A400 has flown.

Regards

Col

[H_K]

It's not landing on dirt that's the issue, it's landing on soft/soggy ground, and doing so again and again without tearing it up too much or ruining your engines. I've yet to see a pic of a C-17 landing on anything but hard packed dirt, which makes sense if you look at its published tactical landing characteristics: http://www.wbdg.org/ccb/AF/AFETL/etl_97_9.pdf (especially page 35)

Based on that PDF, a C-17 can do only ~15 passes on a CBR-6 strip at 350,000lbs, which is equivalent to a roughly 44,000lb/20t payload, leaving 23,000lbs of fuel remaining for a ~500nm return transit. Let's round this to 10 mission cycles (since the take-off pass will be at a lighter weight) - still, the C-17 can only bring in 200t before the runway needs to be repaired.

By comparison, recent public statements claim the A400M can do ~40 cycles or 1,000t into a CBR-6 strip, with a 500nm return transit. That's FIVE TIMES a C-17, though it does seem to be less than originally planned due to weight increases (used to be 60 cycles/120 passes).

Then there's another problem with the C-17: FOD ingestion, which is much worse for a turbofan than a turboprop, and would make tactical ops frightfully expensive.

[VinRouge]

There is a difference between semi prepared and unprepared. It would be interesting to see a comparison of minimum cbr ratings for both platforms too.

[RumPunch]

A and C , I am just reading what is published in the press. If im not mistaken Airbus threatened to can the project a few weeks ago unless more funding was made available. Im all for brining new aircraft into service but on this occasion when the government are looking to cut all funding then the C17 is the only sensible option as its tried and trusted.

So with me saying that we shall see the A400M in service in 2020

[VinRouge]

I think the individuals throwing stones at Airbus over the A400M need to look closely at the introduction of C-17 and how close congress came to cancelling the project.

Funny old thing, it was

Overweight
Overbudget
Late


From the above document:

The C-17 can operate on paved or semi-prepared airfields and
matting. Paved airfields consist of conventional rigid and flexible pavements and are
generally used for routine operations. A “semi-prepared” airfield refers to an unpaved airfield. The amount of engineering effort required to develop a semi-prepared airfield depends on the planned operation, the service life needed to support these operations, and the existing soil and weather conditions.


You cant develop a new concept from scratch without risk and those issues will pall out as the above, as they did with practically every single significant new aircraft project in history.

Besides, with Ireland trashing the Euro, it looks like we will be able to afford quite a few more for the same price sometime soon!

[Uncle Ginsters]

look closely at the introduction of C-17 and how close congress came to cancelling the project.

VR,

You're quite right. But surely the point that's being missed, and where our C17 procurement differs, is that we leased (then bought) C17 well after that initial teething phase. That's what you gain when you're not pandering to the politicians and appeasing an ailing native defence industry.