RAF to get additional C-17

[oldspool]

The Prime Minister has just announced that the U.K will, because of recent savings made in the defense budget, be in a position to purchase 'an additional C-17'. The PM made this announcement at PMQs just now (@12:25, 08-02-12).

[VinRouge]

Busy times ahead for those on 99 Sqn!

[Ken Scott]

This might be good news but I would be more cheered if the PM announced more spares and support for the aircraft we already have.

Still, some of the victims of Project Fawkes might get a C17 slot now....

[Jollygreengiant64]

The faces on some of them when he stated there was going to be 'a' new C-17 joining the ranks.

[Cows getting bigger]

"... defense budget"? Freudian slip? :)

[Uncle Ginsters]

Additional info here...
FlightGlobal (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/uk-to-buy-eighth-c-17-transport-367960/)

Pretty rapid arrival!

[fallmonk]

Is this a uncle sam slot?
very very quick delivery , either that or it was ordered a long time ago but only officialy been made public?
Could the Goverment do such a thing?

On the plus side nice to hear some good news

[Nomorefreetime]

A mate had a tour of Boeing a while ago (at least a year ago) and no 7 and 8 were pointed out to him on the line. 2 more and can we buy a sim ?

[Ken Scott]

The UK operates the second-largest fleet of C-17s, behind the US Air Force, although India recently completed the process of ordering a fleet of 10 to enter use from later this decade.


How much aid do we give India?

[Backwards PLT]

We give aid to specific areas of India to help alleviate poverty and make the lives of very poor people a little better. It is a humanitarian thing to do.

You could ask why the Indian govt spends so much on defence when so many of their people are so poor, but that's not the fault of the UK.

Good news on the C17.

[Ken Scott]

I know that the causes we give aid to are worthwhile but as you say why is India spending £2billion on C17s & not in alleviating their own poverty? I guess the answer might be that they don't need to as we do it for them?

[bythebackdoor]

All very good for 99 Sqn and the C17 community, but just how many of the J hercs could have been serviced for the money spent?
Too many of them posted as U/S:=

And another thing. I thought all the money saved was to fill the 'Black hole'
sounds like the same logic Mrs Bythebackdoor uses with shoes and sales.:confused:

[Equilibrium]

It's affordable cos it's paid from a different budget!!! :ugh::ugh::ugh:

[Geehovah]

Great news but when all you have are tankers and transport aircraft its not an Air Force. I know thats not a welcome view at present but take care of the fighting arm too.

[Rigga]

Geee's,
You're obviously thinking of todays Air Force - not tomorrow's (whatever that may be?)

[Evalu8ter]

Geehova,
I think the £20Bn+ spent on Typhoon is quite enough on the "fighting arm" with god know's how many £Bn's to be thrown at F35 to come....the RNZAF is doing OK with RW/MPA/AT....

The recent largesse poured into AT/SH only serves to make up a fraction of the shortfall over past decades when FJ programmes have gobbled up the budget with indecent haste. Oh, btw, one could argue that AT/SH do constitute a large % of the fighting arm nowadays; they've been in harms way a lot more than the FJ boys and have taken significant combat attrition - the old boundary between front and second line is somewhat blurred by recent Ops.

Not meant to be a dig fella - in an ideal world we'd have a balanced budget and funds for all the toys we want.

Well done on C17 #8, now stop pratting around and buy 2 more, a sim and re-wing the C130Js......

[Out Of Trim]

the RNZAF is doing OK with RW/MPA/AT....

Oh really! :ugh:

Yeah, if you never intend to use or rely on your Air Force to actually defend your country maybe.

We need all elements of our Air Force to well equipped to deal with whatever situation we might need to face.

We need Typhoon and another strike aircraft to equip the two carriers. We also need an MPA to replace Nimrod. We probably need at least 10 C17s.

[Cows getting bigger]

At least NZ weren't stupid enough to get rid of MPA. Who in thier right mind would do that? :bored:

[Evalu8ter]

Out of trim,
And what did a slack handful of Skyhawks/Macchis do? Really? Yep, they could do "stuff" just not coalition "stuff" and would have merely inconvenienced any serious aggressor. What would the tiny force of F16s proposed have provided apart from an ego chariot? At what cost? War is changing; it's getting more expensive to play in the first division - we've made the choice to cling on by our fingernails by distorting the budget to buy totemic capabilities and culling some core ones. Perhaps a little rebalancing of thought as well as budgets would do the UK good. The RNZAF, albeit probably with a metaphorical pistol to its temple, has rebalanced to face the political-economic realities it faces. AT/SH/MPA are essential to it's future path; the airshows might lack some whizz and zoom but their sailors are protected and their troops have mobility.

[Lonewolf_50]

Question from a Yank somewhat in the dark:

First off, congrats on another C-17, it helps RAF retain global reach in supporting ops in a variety of venues. (Also, might that not help the Falklands airbridge requirement somewhat?)

Considering the retirement of Nimrod, is the P-8A Maritime Patrol aircraft something the RAF would consider if the initial operations in the USN, India, and elsewhere prove it to be a good platform?

Boeing (and BAE as a sub? They seem to have some play in this) seems to be building the aircraft with a modular methodology, so that you could customize the design to meet UK-unique requirements.
(No, I don't work for, and don't own stock in, Boeing.)

One advantage to this, were the MPA capability to be revived, would be some logistic support / parts commonality during coalition operations. But I may get getting ahead of myself here ...

[WE992]

The latest addition is great news. However it would have been ratrher more usefull when we were supporting both TELIC and HERRICK and airlift was at a premium. Perhaps we will begin to see less AN-124s in Oxforshire and then we could buy number 9 & 10.

[QTRZulu]

Boeing (and BAE as a sub? They seem to have some play in this) seems to be building the aircraft with a modular methodology, so that you could customize the design to meet UK-unique requirements.
(No, I don't work for, and don't own stock in, Boeing.)

I think as a nation we've already been there and tried that only with slight role reversal.

That didn't work out too well for neither party although Boeing managed to walk away with what is essentially their Mission System funded by the UK taxpayer:mad:

[Bastardeux]

Lonewolf,

I think you're point is pretty logical, it'll be interesting to see what SDSR 2015 throws up, with regard to MPA; I would assume that it would most likely be P-8s though...domestic development is right out!

[BEagle]

Given the massive increase in strategic air transport capability which C-17 and Voyager will shortly be providing and its limited capability (technical, not professional) in the AAR role, does this announcement not sound the death knell for the TriStar? Particularly given that VC10 / VC10K availability is remarkably good at present, given the age of the aircraft.

[WK622]

And, if the extra C-17 were to free up C130 capacity, do we still need to spend money on the 2 UOR BAe 146 QCs?

[Lonewolf_50]

Which aircraft are you referring to, QTRZulu?

UK flies the Apache. (Flew the Phantom for a while as well)
Did something go haywire with Apache?
UK flew Seakings. (That seems to have begun as Sikorsky S-61, did it not?)
We seem to have shared in the Harrier experience, but I don't recall that being a Boeing project, but McDonald Douglass. (Do I recall incorrectly?)

Can you shed some light?

[pr00ne]

Lonewolf_50,


I think you'll find that QTRZulu is referring to the Nimrod MRA4 which had a bespoke mission system that was provided by a Boeing led team.

[cyrilranch]

links-
The UK is to receive another Boeing C-17 strategic transport, with the acquisition to boost the Royal Air Force's fleet of the type to eight aircraft.
Announced by prime minister David Cameron on 8 February, the £200 million ($316 million) purchase represents the potentially final addition to the UK's C-17 fleet, which plays a vital role in sustaining its "airbridge" with Afghanistan. Seven are flown by the service's 99 Sqn from its air transport super base at RAF Brize Norton, Oxfordshire.
http://www.flightglobal.c...h-c-17-transport-367960/ (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/uk-to-buy-eighth-c-17-transport-367960/)

The US Defense Security Cooperation Agency has notified congress of the possible sale of a sixth Boeing C-17 Globemaster III aircraft to Australia for $300 million.
Canberra has requested the aircraft, up to four Pratt & Whitney F117-PW-100 engines and a Northrop Grumman An/AAQ-24V (13) large aircraft infrared counter-measures (LAIRCM) system, the DSCA said. In addition, the deal will include spare parts, training, documentation and test equipment.
http://www.flightglobal.c...quire-sixth-c-17-365095/ (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/australia-likely-to-acquire-sixth-c-17-365095/)

are we getting ripped off ?:hmm:

[Milo Minderbinder]

are we getting ripped off???


Lets see now...... who's involved,....... MOD, Boeing, yep thats an affirmative then

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

are we getting ripped off ?:hmm:

If we are not it will be more by luck than judgment for sure :ugh:

[back end o' the bus]

Don't really matter how many C-17's the RAAF have, maintenance run the Sqn and will always ensure a full fleet will never be possible, whilst ensuring all tasking revolves around maintenance crew duty!!! :D:ugh::ok: oh how the tail wags the RAAF dog.....woof....woof

[force_ale]

As an ex RAF techie I'm sure you are aware that the RAF does not have ground crew duty. Instead we have accidents, near misses and boards of inquiry.:ugh:

[StopStart]

And airfields full of unserviceable aircraft :hmm:

[Jollygreengiant64]

The C-17 won against the AN-124 back at the start, did it not? What would have happened if the RAF went down the other route for Strategic Airlift requirements? Is the 124 a better way to spend the funds?

[Harley Quinn]

As an ex RAF techie I'm sure you are aware that the RAF does not have ground crew duty. Instead we have accidents, near misses and boards of inquiry.:ugh:

And airfields full of unserviceable aircraft http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/yeees.gif


I think I know what you mean, but your intent is less than clear. Could you put it in English for those of us who are hard of thinking?

Ta

[Roadster280]

Seems clear enough to me, and I was a pongo...

[fallmonk]

Is the "extra" $16m maybe to compensate the USAF?? (if it's one of there slots)
Due to the fact is reportedly due very soon ?