PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific (https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific-90/)
-   -   SMH article re RAAF buying c-17s (https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/212029-smh-article-re-raaf-buying-c-17s.html)

Pass-A-Frozo 23rd Feb 2006 12:40

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.

Yikes 23rd Feb 2006 12:44

Originally Posted by numbskull
Why should Australian taxpayers have to fork out billions of dollars to have the capability to invade other countries such as Iraq?

Because they deserve it

jessie13 23rd Feb 2006 20:54

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.

Gnadenburg 23rd Feb 2006 22:07

Originally Posted by griffinblack
Given your outspoken opinion that those in military should not comment on what transpires in industry (particularly from a financial point of view), I find it interesting that you feel qualified to comment on finances associated with military procurement and the consequent capability. Having said that, I recognise the validity of your comments and all the other posters, irrespective of their individual position.

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.

Pass-A-Frozo 24th Feb 2006 02:55

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
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?

Keg 24th Feb 2006 04:26

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:

Lord Snot 24th Feb 2006 07:27

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


numbskull 24th Feb 2006 08:04

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.

Pinky the pilot 24th Feb 2006 08:55

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.

Chimbu chuckles 24th Feb 2006 09:01

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.

Pass-A-Frozo 24th Feb 2006 09:13

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.

numbskull 24th Feb 2006 09:37

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.

Pass-A-Frozo 24th Feb 2006 10:15

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

Going Boeing 24th Feb 2006 11:14

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.

Taildragger67 24th Feb 2006 11:22


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?


Taildragger67 24th Feb 2006 11:34

Actually Jessie, you might just be right:

C17 specs:

CH47 specs:

Point0Five 24th Feb 2006 13:03

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.

Pass-A-Frozo 24th Feb 2006 18:55

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.

Keg 24th Feb 2006 20:19

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:

Buster Hyman 24th Feb 2006 20:50

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! :( )

All times are GMT. The time now is 12:01.

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.