RAAF to get another C17 Globemaster III

[Going Boeing]

C-17A Globemaster III Letter of Request

Australia is investigating the purchase of an additional C-17A Globemaster III heavy lift aircraft Minister for Defence Stephen Smith said today.

Australia has sent a Letter of Request to the United States regarding the potential purchase of an additional C-17A aircraft through the United States Foreign Military Sales program, formally seeking cost and availability information.

Mr Smith said the Royal Australian Air Force currently had four C-17A Aircraft. They were delivered over the period 2006 to 2008. The first of these became operational in 2007, providing the Australian Defence Force with a global airlift capability.

Recent events in Queensland and Christchurch have underlined the C‑17s as an essential part of Australia's capacity to respond to natural disasters both within Australia and within our region.

While disaster relief has been a recent public focus for C-17 operations, they continue to support Australian and International Security Assistance Forces in Afghanistan and the Middle East, meeting their primary purpose in providing military long-range heavy airlift.

The C‑17A aircraft can lift very large and heavy cargoes over long distances providing a significant contribution to Australia's ability to reach and respond to events. One C‑17A can carry up to four C-130 Hercules loads in a single lift and cover twice the distance in three-quarters of the time of a C‑130 Hercules.

Mr Smith said that acquisition of an additional C-17 would almost certainly obviate any need for the acquisition of two additional C-130J-30 aircraft under project AIR 8000 Phase 1.

As outlined in the Public Defence Capability Plan, the additional C-130J acquisition is planned for final decision by Government in the period 2013-14 to FY 2014-15.

Following receipt of cost and availability information from the United States , the Government will make a decision about purchase based on capability, cost and schedule assessments of an additional C-17.

Source : MoD Australia

Why only one more, it should be at least two as the production line is about to close!

[LAME2]

I would have thought an additional 6 needed to acquire critical mass on the spares inventory. With the current workload around the world, an additional (4-6) would be easily utilized. More the better, however the Government seems it has given itself a tight budget.

[Taildragger67]

One's better than none.

[aussie027]

Yes, as was stated in Australian Aviation Magazine recently 2 more, within the strict budgetary constraints, would be best for a variety of reasons instead of just 1.

As for real world practicality and possible future workloads then another 4-8 would be better and of more use than replacing the oldest Hercs due to be retired with a few newer Hercs.:ok:

Sadly, even if aircraft are avail off the line before it closes it all comes down to cash in the end. :uhoh:

[spacemantan]

As outlined in the Public Defence Capability Plan, the additional C-130J acquisition is planned for final decision by Government in the period 2013-14 to FY 2014-15.



I thought the production line was set to close 2012ish and that Boeing were going to cut down production rates soon (if not now) due to the majority of orders having been completed.

That being the case, i'm certain the government will have to make a decision in the next financial year... not 2013-2014.

[DutchRoll]

As usual (from personal RAAF transport experience and acquaintance with people in the present-day transport world), this extra C17 will be ordered without any increase in funding for flying hours or logistics support, ie, drivers, blokes with spanners and a spare part in hand to fix it when it breaks, etc.

But like everything else, it will look impressive on the flight line. Even when it's not working. We can say we have FIVE, not four. And the public will be proud, and wonder how often it flies, and marvel at the stupendous cost savings achieved in not buying two aircraft @ about $70-80 million each, but instead buying a single C17 @ about $200 million.

<dutchy's ex-military sarcasm off>

[Old Fella]

Should get Bob Hawke on the case. I recall his stated intention to sell the first two B707's into RAAF service if he got into office. Did he sell them? No, he got five more.

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

That being the case, i'm certain the government will have to make a decision in the next financial year... not 2013-2014.

The fifth aircraft is already in production and should be delivered by the end of September...THIS YEAR!

[spacemantan]

The fifth aircraft is already in production and should be delivered by the end of September...THIS YEAR!

Not too sure about that, The decision to purchase hasn't exactly been made, just a letter of inquiry essentially. The RAAF and in particular DMO have to shore up the money first, dip into a number of other buckets and make sure the dosh is there before it goes ahead. My point was that the original reporting (from newspapers mind you) was a bit odd seeing that it was saying the decision to purchase wasn't going to be made until after the production line had closed. Journo's go their numbers wrong no doubt.

There are currently 4 unassigned C-17's sitting out the front of the production facility. I'm almost certain that one of those would go to the RAAF if the decision is made soon.

[tiger19]

spacemantan, I thought the money for the C-17 was coming from approx $400 million surplus from the defence budget.

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

I thought the money for the C-17 was coming from approx $400 million surplus from the defence budget.

Incorrect. The money is coming from that already put aside for the two extra J's under Phase 1 of Air 8000. Despite what The Canberra Times has claimed, there is no direct link to last year's underspend! It actually helps the Govt because the money for the Js was allocated for FY13-14 which is when Govt wanted to return to surplus. That money will now be brought forward to FY11-12, and about $100 million will actually be returned to the DCP.

The decision to purchase hasn't exactly been made, just a letter of inquiry essentially.

It's a formality - a tail number HAS been assigned, and it's on the line now. Trust me when I say it'll be here by the end of September...unless we get another budget busting national emergency on the scale of QLD floods/Yasi/Christchurch etc.

[blumoon]

FA18 - Is this the same 'Trust me' as when you said the KC-30A is all fine and will be here soon??:E

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

I'll bend over and take that fair and square...would you believe end of May for the KC-30??? :}

[Like This - Do That]

From Minister Clare's office earlier today:

Minister for Defence Materiel – Sixth C-17A Globemaster III – Letter of Request (http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/2011/09/23/minister-for-defence-materiel-sixth-c-17a-globemaster-iii-%E2%80%93-letter-of-request/)

And still no word on AIR 8000 Ph 2. A sixth C-17A will utterly rule out any more J model Hercs as well. I had a sortie cancelled this week due to a lack of airframes. I'm sure ALG and Ronnie are thrilled to be getting another hulking big Globemaster III, but we need more airworthy Hercs and we need Spartans.

[Keg]

I'm no expert on AF doctrine but I would have thought that we are very well placed now- with the addition of this extra C17- in the strategic transport category but that our tactical transport is now severely 'underdone' with lack of Caribou replacement even on the horizon? Do extra CH-47s cut it in that role or do we need something like a Spartan?

[reacher]

How about CH47Fs with AAR prode (MH47s) and KC130s instead of C27Js?

Or

Both CH47F AND Spartans?

:dreaming:

[TBM-Legend]

Be smart to add another KC-30 while we're at it..

Extra tankers never go astray particularly if we're looking at more Super Bugs..

[crocodile redundee]

Probably getting it to ferry boat people from Port Hedland to Tin Can Bay army base , the strip there is being lengthened to take them as we speak. The army base rumoured to become another refugee camp.... Wonderful!!!!!

[David75]

Be smart to add another KC-30 while we're at it..


Is there a recent example where a defensive focused airforce (essentially AUS) has managed to get refuelling / airlift capacity airborne when caught by a strategic surprise attack. Rather than having it destroyed on the ground?

[Max Tow]

Interesting argument in the above mentioned release justifying another $250million C17. Surely "twice the distance in three quarters of the time" would require a speed of 2.66 x the Herc's 290kt cruise speed rather than the C17's 450kt? Also most of the recent jobs quoted (recent relief efforts to Queensland,Japan & NZ) don't really seem to require the hugely impressive but expensive capabilities of the C17 and could presumably have been done by a standard civilian freighter or pax a/c at a fraction of the capital & operating cost. I guess the very reasonable argument is that if we've got them, we might as well use them, but to justify adding to the fleet on this basis seems open to question.

[aussie027]

David,

A well planned and executed surprise attack will, similar to Pearl Harbour for eg catch the target off guard and would result in the destruction of most air assets of every type on the ground.

If a possible outbreak of hostilities has resulted in elevated threat levels then you would hope that would not be the case but like at Pearl, a raised threat level was still insufficient to prevent overwhelming losses when the attack came.

The Israeli Airforce Attack in 1967's 6 day war wiped out almost the entire Egyptian air force on the ground as well as badly mauling those of Syria and Jordan in the first day!!
After six days of fighting Israel claimed a total of 452 Arab aircraft destroyed, of which 49 were aerial victories.

Most of the worlds military planners in nations everywhere are stuck in a mindset of WW 2 style era conflict.
IE-that any initial losses will be made up and replaced over a given time period during a prolonged conflict and the nations forces will fight on and hopefully eventually prevail. (Conventional conflicts only.ie Non nuclear )

This is totally wrong in the modern era with modern weapons and technology.

Most countries with small to medium size military forces , including Australia could see almost their entire navy or airforce literally wiped out in as little as a few hours or a single day of high intensity battle,especially if attacked by a country with far larger forces and equal or better technological capability.
A naval flotilla / battle group or an entire squadron of fighters/attack aircraft can easily be lost in an hour.

Once gone in a such a short time the nation may be totally defenceless without aid from other allied nations (who may also be under attack). So tens or hundreds of billions of dollars worth of air and naval assets that took decades to acquire can be lost in hours or a day or 2.
Ground forces of course face similar quick destruction especially without air superiority being held over the battlefield. Many historical eg of that scenario too.
A single ship or aircraft costs a huge amount of money compared to an armies most expensive individual weapons system which is likely a tank or mobile artillery system.

No one likes to think of such scenarios being possible so they don't. ( heads in the sand??)
No one wants to hear that their nations defence force which cost tens or hundreds of billions of dollars and decades to build can literally be wiped out in a few hours or days or maybe weeks at most given the right battle scenarios.

[Gnadenburg]

Australia's greatest defence against a surprise attack is the tyranny of distance. You would need carrier based air assets to destroy Australian aircraft that are still primarily based in our south. Small carriers with defensive VTOL fighters would not cut it either- so nobody other than the US, France and Britain has that capability at the moment.

A more likely scenario is terrorist attacks on our military assets involving loss of life and loss of expensive equipment. Australian bases are poorly defended against this type of attack. Or, in a regional scenario, surprise attacks by unconventional ground troops on our northern bases - Tindal, Darwin, JORN etc. These would be difficult to defend against without intelligence heightening readiness.

Personally, I believe our defence forces are a basket case. Poor procurement decisions, leadership failures, civilian bureaucracy gone mad and unrealistic threat analysis driving wildly ambitious force structures. For instance, the RAAF says we must have 100 JSF aircraft to defend ourselves with, yet we make do for a decade with under 60-70.

The last thing we need is masses of American troops based on our soil with the social problems that brings. However, our military leadership has left us paying huge sums of money for a relatively ineffective defence force. Bring the Americans here and simplify our procurement and structural ambitions. Buy what they have in service for our own services and drag their forces south into our immediate region. Very cheap defence.

[Arm out the window]

Surely "twice the distance in three quarters of the time" would require a speed of 2.66 x the Herc's 290kt cruise speed rather than the C17's 450kt?

I imagine that would be taking into account the Herc's fuel stop to go the full distance.

[Max Tow]

AOTW: er...then they would be both be flying the same distance.
Presumably what they actually mean is that the C17 can fly twice as far long haul or do short sectors in 25% less time. Still, forget the arithmetic & economics..they obviously like the C17 so let's give them another one!

[Sunfish]

I hear that we are solving our transport problems by buying 100 surplus B52 aircraft and converting them to freighters at Avalon...

Well it worked so well last time........

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

C-27Js are coming but there is still work to be done. Despite Airbus's desire for a competition for its C295, it's not the right airplane.

One or two more KC-30s would be nice, but we haven't got the manpower allowance for it, and with government wanting to return to surplus next year, it aint gonna happen in the short term.

[Gnadenburg]

One or two more KC-30s would be nice, but we haven't got the manpower allowance for it, and with government wanting to return to surplus next year, it aint gonna happen in the short term.

Is the Australian military serious about war fighting? No manpower allowances for expanded tanker operations? Will there be any allowance for surge operations?

Considering the number of ex-RAAF personnel with so much experience on the Airbus, this is the ideal operation to expand with Reservists.

Politically, there are good reasons to go long on our tankers ( if they are any good ). Even if it means a sacrifice in the number of tactical fighters finally procured. Tankers are a very useful commitment to any Allied air campaign. They lack the political visibility of fighters, lending toward left-leaning governments to participate more willingly in future conflicts, and they cost a lot less than deploying fighters or maintaining our fighter fleets to be immediately capable of participating in a modern air campaign.

[TBM-Legend]

RAAF KC-30 and C-17's should have a large AF reserve element supporting them as is in the USAF with ANG and AF Reserve squadrons being integrated into their wings of KC-135/KC-10 and C-17 units [don't mention fighters/bombers and everything else flown by the Guard etc]...

[Jetsbest]

Gnads & TBM...

In the USA, military reservist flight time is a national matter and, I've been told by someone who used to do it, separate from FAA flight time limitations; individuals manage their 'fatigue' but the employer doesn't, in a legal sense, have to worry about it so to speak.

but...

At present a pilot's 'RAAF reservist' hours count against his/her CAO hours and no company in Oz is going to happily forego pilot utilisation just because an employee racked up some hours in the national interest. KC-30s and C-17s, or anything 'civvy-equivalent' for that matter, do long flights which would unavoidably impact CAO limits, and for a reservist to drop rostered civilian hours for reservist pay is, I imagine, a big pay drop and therefore unlikely to be appealing. (everyone has a mortgage/kids/alimony/etc!)

I see the need for a scheme where government and industry agree that reservists:
- may serve for agreed blocks of time (eg month-on, month-off),
- receive 'top-up' pay to cater for that lost due to being unavailable to their primary civilian employer, and
- the employer receives compensation for the need to train additional staff to cater for reservists' absences (I believe this part already happens).

I've also heard that the RAAF may even consider non-RAAF-trained pilots for some of these type of jobs; why shouldn't a qualified VB or QF 737 pilot crew BBJ VIP flights? Time, and any manpower shortages, will tell if the latter comes to pass. :)

[Going Boeing]

Sixth C-17A Globemaster III - Letter of Request
http://www.asdnews.com/data_news/ID38367_600.jpg
Minister for Defence Stephen Smith announced today that Australia is investigating the purchase of a sixth C-17A Globemaster III heavy-lift aircraft.

Australia has sent a Letter of Request to the United States regarding the potential purchase of an additional C-17A aircraft through the United States Foreign Military Sales program, formally seeking cost and availability information.

A sixth C-17 would give the Government increased options to support a wider range of contingencies that might require heavy-lift aircraft. Advice from Defence is that a sixth aircraft would double the number of C-17A aircraft available for operations at any one time compared to four aircraft.

Minister Smith made this announcement at the Amberley Air Force Base today at the ceremony marking the arrival into Australia of the Royal Australian Air Force's fifth C-17A.

The acquisition of the fifth C-17A was announced by the Government on 1 March this year and was confirmed in the 2011-12 Budget.

On 14 September, Minister Smith took delivery of the fifth C-17A Globemaster III at Boeing's Long Beach production facility near Los Angeles.

The Royal Australian Air Force's five C-17A aircraft were delivered over the period 2006 to 2011. The first of these became operational in 2007, providing the Australian Defence Force with a global airlift capability.

The addition of the fifth aircraft to the Air Force's fleet will expand Australia's capacity to deploy personnel and equipment rapidly all around the world.

The C‑17A aircraft can lift very large and heavy cargoes over long distances providing a significant contribution to Australia's ability to reach and respond to events. One C‑17A can carry up to four C-130 Hercules loads in a single lift and cover twice the distance in three-quarters of the time of a C‑130.

Events in Queensland, Christchurch and Japan earlier this year underlined the C‑17s as an essential part of Australia's capacity to respond to natural disasters both within Australia and within our region.

The ability of C-17s to move equipment and people played a vital role in the aftermath of Cyclone Yasi in north Queensland in February, helping to transport ADF personnel and civilians and airlifting more than 320 tonnes of cargo, including more than 200 tonnes of food supplies. C-17s also helped evacuate to safety in Brisbane more than 250 patients from Cairns Hospital and Cairns Private Hospital.

C-17s also delivered much-needed equipment, stores and emergency services personnel to New Zealand in the wake of the terrible February earthquake in Christchurch and returned more than 100 Australian civilians to Australia.

In March, following the earthquake and tsunami in Japan, C-17s moved more than a million pounds (450 tonnes) of cargo, including 41 vehicles, as well as 135 passengers as part of Australia's relief efforts in Japan. At one stage during the relief operation, Australia had three C-17 aircraft in Japan providing humanitarian assistance and disaster-relief support.

While disaster relief has been a recent public focus for C-17 operations, they also continue to support Australian and International Security Assistance Forces in Afghanistan and the Middle East, meeting their primary purpose in providing military long-range heavy airlift.

Following receipt of cost and availability information from the United States, the Government will make a decision about the purchase based on capability, cost and schedule assessments of the sixth C‑17A.

Source : MoD Australia ASD news

[jas24zzk]

So now we are looking at a 6th?

i forget who the poster was (i did do a brief scan)...but they alluded to Boing having several parked out the front with no owners. Based on someone elses costings, wouldn't it be cheaper to just buy the lot and be done with it....it'd make boing happy to move em on.....

:ugh:

[Super 64]

As much as we need extra helos, we also need a replacement for the Caribou.

CH-47 was about four times the running cost per hr than the 'bou, so that in it's self is reason enough.

Plus the range and mainenace areas are other reasons.

I just wouldn't hold my breath for these to eventuate.

Cut a few JSFs from the order, as we are far more likely to utilise the above mentioned aircraft in all of Defence's future Ops, and voila! extra money to buy what we really need.

S64

[plainmaker]

I know this has been debated previously (and I am aware of thread drift) but the crowd who purchased the DHC designs and IP are already churning out new Twotters.
I seem to recall that the feasibility to restart production of the Buffalo was being looked at, but had to jump through a new series of regulatory hoops.

The Buffalo is essentially a turbine powered Caribou. As mentioned above, if Australia were to reduce a commitment of 5 JSF, and instead throw that money at the Buffalo project by way of seed funding, we could have a very capable replacement in 3-4 years.

Plainmaker

[shadowoneau]

Cut a few JSFs from the order, as we are far more likely to utilise the above mentioned aircraft in all of Defence's future Ops, and voila! extra money to buy what we really need.

Well, you only need six jets for an Airshow! :E

[TBM-Legend]

All C-17's are spoken for. No white [gray] tails at Long Beach....

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

TBM - correct.

Boeing recently cut back from two shifts to one and has scaled back to building 10 C-17s a year in order to extend the life of the line.

There is an Indian order of 10-16 jets to be filled, plus a similar number in the USAF backlog, plus hot prospects for further sales in the Middle East.

[RATpin]

FA18 and others in the know,what would be the "critical Mass" in terms of numbers of this awesome Aircraft in RAAF service?
Just an interested observer.

[ftrplt]

7 when full servicing cycle established (i.e ~ 4 years from original deliveries) with current resources allocated (i.e same manpower and annual hours for 7 with a mature maintenance schedule as for 4 in the first few years).

This has always been a known target, b ut you cant necessarily order them all at once due funding being required to be allocated when the Project is established.

Hence the staged orders as original acquisitions start hitting depot servicings AND funding remains available in later years (never a guarantee of that)

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

Pretty much what ftrplt said....five is better than four, six is better than five, seven would be pretty much optimal.

[RATpin]

Thanks for the info Blokes,
Cheers