I wish someone would tell me if they are about to scrap the Seasprite. I'm about to spend $400K on something to support the seasprite!! :eek: Although we shouldn't be locked in for some 6 months or so.

Because they deserve it

I think a lot of people are looking for excuses for not getting the aircraft. After relying on Hercs for getting me around and the amount of hassles because the Herc is not quite big enough, the C-17 would be a good addition to the ADF. Just cast your minds back to when Australia has deployed overseas. When the Iroquois were bought back from the Siani, they used a C-5 because the didn't require disassembly to transport. When the Tampa crisis was happening, the only aircraft the could get to Christmas Island in a hurry in a Herc was a UH-1H without much disassembly. A Black Hawk would have taked a few more days to get there. How much easier would have it been to have our own C-17 to transport the Black Hawks to Pakistan and just role them out the back, spread the blades and fly. Herc transporting of our rotary wing assests is an ongoing and necessary requirement of our transport aircraft. Even a chook will fit into a C-17. With Tiger, MRH-90 and what ever the Navy gets to replace Sea King, the ability to get it anywhere in the world without much stuffing around is a bonus. Just imagine everything else we could transport around that doesn't fit into a Herc. We have relied upon chartering aircraft to do to many operational tasks for too many years. The C-17 is not only the best aircraft for it but long overdue. As for the $2b price tag, what a bargin. As someone else has already stated, that covers spares training etc. but also includes the follow up support through logistics, spares etc for the length of the project. There are a quite a few extras required to run a bi aircraft and $2b will just about cover it. The C-17 is not a tank transporter, it has the capability to do it but has the capability to do so much more that what we currently have.

Well here is thread drift with a sanctimonious slant.

Outspoken? Frozo got involved in banter involving peoples' livelihood. Started out with a little rationality but in the end, by his own admission, took on a personal agenda- anti-unionist, obsolete Thatcherisms frankly.

An individual's opinion on the generic structure of the ADF, is these days, almost a political view. So it's not a matter of qualification of comment, but whether you believe, in this case, that C17's are an imperative component of the ADF's makeup, or just an expeditionary platform to reinforce Crusader like operations in far away lands.

Also, you shouldn't find it too interesting that I would wish to comment on defence procurement, when a few lines later you inquire as to whether an expensive navy helicopter project is to be scrapped.

I think that is exactly what he is talking about. Take a look back at the masses of "Keep your nose out of it, you don't know what you are talking about because you don't work for QANTAS" presented simply because people didn't like what I said. It was all rational Gnad. All I presented was an alternate opinion to the "Lets all unify and strike for better pay" mob. It all comes down to ethical decision making models. The pro-union strikers have utilitarian ethics, whilst for the most part I have deontalogical ethics.

I wonder if the C-17 Project will include something like an option for 2 more etc?

Withi respect PAFie, it wasn't 'lets all unify and strike', it was 'lets all unite and actually say 'no' to crap conditions and push for better ones'. Significant difference.

I hope the C17 deal does include an expansion deal like the Wedgetail contact. I reckon that was a win for all concerned. :ok:

Forget bitching about cost, take a look at the cockpit.

It's obviously a MAN'S machine. Take a look at the big prong (for those of you who are into prongs....), HUD, manly thrust levers unlike the pooncy, gay little things in the blunder-bus, AND.......... expecially for the sheep-shaggers to drool over.... sheepskin seat covers......nice.

Relax, Kiwiz, you still have your Aztruck to fly helen the ork in!

cockpit pic

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0883380/M/

Ok so I will agree that the C-17 sounds like a good asset for the ADF and it would be very handy for deploying assets around Australia and the Pacific. My ignorance of things military has been discovered.

I'm just jealous that you guys get training on new equipment.

Frozo, thanks for broadening my horizons on things literary. I had never even heard of the word "deontalogical" let alone know what it meant.

For those as ignorant as I it means "Ethical theory concerned with duties and rights.

Life in Qantas is neither ethical nor theoritical and as such your deontological views do not apply to us.

But life in Qantas does come with duties and rights, does it not Numbskull? As indeed it does almost anywhere for that matter.

You only live twice. Once when
you're born. Once when
you've looked death in the face.

I think the C17 is a good idea....money well spent.

Droning back and forth half away around the world in a C130J is just inefficient.

But I would like to see the F111s zero timed and kept on....I think JSF is just toys for boys...the threat argument doesn't stand up in my opinion...we need it's payload range for this region...not fancy pants new age technology designed to survive in a threat environment that never seems to eventuate....does anyone honestly believe the indons or a terrorist group will field technology that can defeat the Pig fangs out at 600kts and 200' on a dark night?

JSF is just toys for boys...C17 is a necesity.

C-130J half-way around the world is only good for small deployments carrying stuff you can't take on QANTAS. :) You are right though. It's common for 2 or 3 C-130's to take some group on exercise etc., where a C-17 could have taken the lot.

Yes pinky your right,

Please fwd your concerns about duties to the Qantas board of directors and your concerns about rights to the ACTU. Neither of which seem to take much notice of ethics or theory.

I hope you get your C17's with everything you need to operate effectively.

I clearly think there are problems with acquisition. The Aussie C-130J fitment was substandard - The Italian C-130J comes with a Cappucino machine! :}

The biggest problem is trying to maintain operations with such a small number of airframes. The Army found when they initially had four Chinooks that it was unable to make effective use of them. They then got permission from the Government for two more - maybe this is the RAAF's plan, get a foot in the door first.

Most airlines look at a minimum fleet size of 12-15 to be cost effective - less than that makes the cost of spares and manpower too prohibitive.

Jessie,

You sure you'd be able to squeeze a Chook into a C17 without much activity with a spanner? It'd have to be the tightest of fits...

Anyway re my previous posts - not against getting C17s at all; in fact bring 'em on. My question was simply as to costs and the hope that the ADF is not paying over the odds.

Going Boeing has a good question - is four enough? If we do want to be able to move a meaningful force (ie. a couple of choppers or tanks, plus all spares and crew, over a reasonable distance) in anything approaching a hurry, shouldn't we plan on having more than one available at all times (I am - possibly ignorantly - assuming that a fleet of four is required to have at least one a/c available at all times given maint & statistical u/s). So I'm in favour of 6 or so, to further reduce the possibility of having to charter.

Anyone able to comment on the RAF's experience? I think they kicked off with four - they got any more now?

Also, what sqn are the C17s likely to be attached to? 33, 36 or 37? Re-form 38?

Thanks
TD67

Actually Jessie, you might just be right:

C17 specs:
http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/...17/c17spec.htm

CH47 specs:
http://www.boeing.com/rotorcraft/mil.../ch47dspec.htm

An individual's opinion on the generic structure of Qantas, is these days, almost a political view. So it's not a matter of qualification of comment, but whether you believe, in this case, that pilot remuneration is an imperative component of Qantas's makeup, or just an expeditionary platform to reinforce self-serving operations from a long gone reality.

Indeed 0.050 .

So does anyone have the range handy of a C-17. Is Sydney - LA possible ? or can the C17 crews still look forward to a night in Hawaii. (I can never spell that!) Does that mean Kwaj is out of there , period!:eek:

Oh well.. It is usually bloody closed by the time a herc gets there anyway :) Great loadies have the beer in the cargo door.

Doesn't it have in flight refueling?
 

I would have thought that SYD- anywhere whould have been possible with the joys if in flight refuelling! :E Of course, it depends on the A330 variant as to whether it can get enough gas on to support it going across! :eek:

Chimbu I'm a F111 fan as well, albeit from the couch! And, whilst I agree with you about "overkill" for regional threats argument, I am one of those critical of the RNZAF's lack of strike capability. The F111 may be king of the region, but can it be upgraded enough if deployed against a better equipped & trained adversary?

Just my 2 cents! (err...which when rounded down, equates to nothing anyway! :( )

Taildregger67,

38 SQN doesnt need to be re-formed... it already exists.

Caribou, based in Amberley with a detachment in Townsville.

Aussie

PAF,

Ahh yes, good old Kwaj.

Karaoke and line dancing at the Yuk-yuk club with that never-ending popcorn machine; beers at the Caribou Lounge with all those ex-CIA types. The fun never ends. I remember them closing tower services exactly on the hour once, the fact that we were on 3 mile finals didn't seem to matter! At least the P-3 could get there from EDN, that new-fangled J model had to go through TVL when we deployed to Fincastle '02.

ruprecht.

Would also love to see the F111 continue to live on forever. Fact is is just won't happen unfortunately:sad:
The F111 already takes a sizeable portion of the defence budget just to keep it running.

Touche!

But.........

Frozo's virginity with the civilian world needs constant guidance. His cop out rebuttle, where he questions the ethics of industrial strikes, was neither accurate ( as no one suggested this option ) and naively ignorant.

Qantas pilots are a carefully, choreographed, chosen few. Psychometric & personality testing ( which most people fail as evidenced by bitterness on these pages ) lean toward an odd character; where despite passionate loyalty never being reciprocated, their almost "deontological" morality has a strike option erased from the industrial quiver.



Frozo

How does a deontologist ( ? ) march to war on a Bush bandwagon?

Wonder if Boeing would do a deal on a small F15/C17 purchase?

I'm trying ignore your misguided comments Gnad to prevent thread hijacking. Start a new thread and I'll explain all. By the way Gnad, I have worked in the civilian world (and no, before you make another assumption, not McDonalds during high school) - A lot of people on this site have made a lot of inaccurate assumptions about me simply because they don't like my opinion. You know everyone in the military didn't walk out of school straight into the recruiting office.

Strike out of the question?? I guess that would explain the flood of people posting "No, don't do it" on the townsville pilot industrial action thread??

A deontologist goes to war because he thinks it is the right thing to do. I thought the definition of the word would explain that.

Finacastle 02. That was Scotland?? I did the redeploy :)

As for air to air refuelling, The J model has all the plumbing etc for air to air refueling. They just didn't get the probe. Don't know why. I guess since they haven't even got externals on the beasts, I'm dreaming about them installing the probe.

Taildragger - if your read one of my earlier posts - I answered that question about the RAF.

They started with 4 leased, and are now buying them outright, plus two more (I understand it's been reported open-source).

And Yes, a Chinook will fit. You have to remove the forward and aft rotors, hubs, gearboxes and any pylons, and store the blades and fwd pylon/gearbox inside the helo. Also still have room for a Landrover 110, the 15T crane to re-assemble the Helo, and 43 personnel.

I have a copy of the Boeing booklets on US Military Loads and Pacific Nations Military Loads Cargo Compartment Versatility books if anyone wants to have a look..........:E :E :E

Gnads

A well placed source told me two years ago that Boeing had put an offer to the Oz Gov't for leased F15E's to be operated as an interim measure until the JSF enters operational service. I believe that the offer was rejected as it is cheaper to fit the F-18s and AP3C's with standoff weapons to supposedly do the required missions in the interim.

Would be interested in the relative costing of a Boeing commercially guaranteed, leased flightline of F15E's versus operationally capable F111's.

If our 500 million a year F111 budget, only delivers under a dozen war capable aircraft and reducing, a small number of F15's could affordably replace that capability and reduce expectations of the F18 fleet.

Would the structure of a RAAF equipped with F15/F18's be the lowest risk option until a replacement available?

1 & 6 SQN will become F18 squadrons when the F111 is retired, until the JSF arrives. 1 SQN will be at Williamtown and 6SQN will be at Tindal.

We are getting 4x C17s and they will be going to Amberley (via Richmond for a few years).

You know if they plan on keeping any H's at this stage? Will they keep all H's at 36 and form a new SQN for the 17's?

C-17s are not replacing C130 capability - they are replacing contracted aircraft capability (like the Air Luxor A330).

If anything the C130H will be replaced by the C130J. But there's no hurry. I believe they are upgrading the C130H with new avionics.

I thought they finished that a little while ago. More J's would be good though. A shame they let the option for 24? more expire.

Yeah actually they have. Considering all the money they are spending on new aircraft (JSF, Wedgetail, A330 and now C17) I guess they have to draw the line somewhere.

Aussie,

Thanks - I stand corrected ("No, you were wrong!"). Did I mean 35? I've been out of the country for a while but I seem to recall there was a rejig in ALG a few years back and I thought one of the sqns - 35 or 38 - got folded.

Anyway Scran, thanks - sorry I missed that in your post. I knew the RAF had converted to purchase but wasn't aware of the extra two they'd gone for. I also checked the Boeing website and agree that a C17 could swallow a Chook. Surprising; they just don't look that big in photos but they're bigger than a Starlifter.

Good luck Bs & Gs - with all those new types coming in, looks like you've got lots of new toys to play with!! The Pt Cook museum had better start making some room for new exhibits...

So the RAAF will have 5 fighter squadrons with around 40 operational Hornets after F111 retires? Is that a lot of unneccessary bureaucracy or just keeping an unrealistic structure in place for 100 JSF's?

Anyone know why the government abandoned cruise missiles for the Orions yesterday? Political, technical or naval rivalry? On paper, seemed a great capability to have in terms of the aircraft's range and in context of a war on terror.

Who says we will only have 40 operational units? F18s are about as common as 737s these days, we can easily 'borrow' a few to tie us over.

You might find they will disband 77 squadron.

And no, they are keeping 1 and 6 SQN operational to maintain a capability. We will have the A330s by then, so the F18 will be able to perform the same role. They could keep the squadrons for a few years without aircraft if they wanted to.

Pigs
 

1 Sqn is the oldest RAAF unit and can't be disbanded for traditions sake, hence the reason it turns into a Hornet unit. Just before I left the talk was of 1 and 6 merging when the G model retires, thus pooling all the maint effort into keeping the C's flying...therefore I don't think 6 Sqn will exist as a seperate entitiy until the JSF arrives.

Bad time to be a Nav...you want fries with that? :(

That's right, and all F/A-18s around the world share the same configuration and capabilities regardless of upgrades and model :hmm:

Worked for Point Cook.......