SMH article re RAAF buying c-17s
 

Relief for stretched Hercules to cost $2b - SMH

"dodgy Antonovs" - bit strong, innit? I thought the AN-124's record was alright?

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/...284005870.html

Relief for stretched Hercules to cost $2b

By Tom Allard

February 21, 2006

THE Federal Government is poised to buy at least four C-17 Globemaster transport planes to relieve pressure on its overworked fleet of Hercules C-130s, which have given almost three years of non-stop service in Iraq.

Costing up to $2 billion for the four, the huge aircraft can carry four times as much as the C-130, land on airstrips as short as 900 metres with a full load and comfortably accommodate the Australian Defence Force's new heavyweight battle tank.

The high priority being placed on the purchase by senior Defence Force figures reflects serious operational problems during deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Defence Force has had to borrow similar aircraft from the US, Britain and Russia to supply its forces, causing resentment from Australia's allies, logistical headaches and even danger for forces and dignitaries travelling in dodgy Russian-built Antonovs to the Middle East.

Defence insiders told the Herald that the US-built C-17 Globemasters had been settled on after the merits of Airbus's cheaper but smaller A400M were considered. It is expected that the new aircraft will be based at Richmond, home of 36 Squadron.

"The fact is that this is the only one that can really take the Abrams," said one Defence source, referring to the heavy-armoured M1A1 Abrams battle tank Australia is buying from the US.

The decision to buy the aircraft is expected to be announced at budget time, or when the new Defence Capability Plan - a 10-year, $50 billion defence spending blueprint - is released mid-year.

The Herald understands that Defence is weighing up which is the best method to pay for the aircraft, which cost $220 million each but will cost as much again in terms of training, electronic warfare upgrades and spares.

While the US and British tend to supply their forces for a few weeks, Australian military personnel in the Middle East often need several months' worth of provisions and ammunition to overcome the stretched supply line back to Australia.

The recent deployment of SAS to Afghanistan reportedly required 18 supply trips from Kuwait by a C-17.

In Iraq two C-130 aircraft have been operating almost around the clock for three years ferrying supplies and troops.

This high tempo of operations - the C-130s have also operated in Afghanistan and in tsunami relief - has caused significant wear and tear and stretched spares and maintenance staff.

The fast-tracked purchase of the aircraft also reflects the new military doctrine for the Defence Force outlined late last year.

It said Australia would make "meaningful" contributions to coalition military operations overseas. Previously it had described such Australian deployments as "niche".

But Defence will be under pressure to make savings elsewhere, by delaying or scrapping other programs.

Defence Force finances have not met audit standards for several years and, while budget coffers are awash with funds thanks to the resources boom and the growing economy, it is unlikely that Defence will be given leave to spend as it sees fit.

However, it will be promised real increases in funding of at least 3 per cent for the next decade in the budget. A spokesman for the Minister for Defence, Brendan Nelson, said no final decision had been made on the aircraft.

People see Russian and think "Antonov". Probably actually referring to the IL-76

Why should Australian taxpayers have to fork out billions of dollars to have the capability to invade other countries such as Iraq? They are the Australian DEFENCE forces after all, not the Australian Invasion Forces. If we really need them down the track for the defence of Australia then I'm sure the Yanks will provide them for us for an appropriate sum of money.

Why shouldn't they outsource this capability to the lowest cost operater such as the Russia? Or if the yanks so desperately need our soldiers on the battlefield to create the illusion of a coalition then let them pay for it.

Maybe Mr Frozo will find his job outsourced, his career prospects limited or take a massive pay cut and then understand what it feels like to be on the wrong end of a globalised competetive cost cutting excercise.

Numbskull

If we are presented with a threat to our interests how do YOU propose we move defensive (!!!!) forces to the operation? A fleet of C-17s isn't just for moving people to and from places like Iraq or Afghanistan. Have you any idea how difficult it is be to lift a light mech brigade from Darwin to the Kimberley, for example?

And as for Australia invading other countries .... with what? An ADF grossly underfunded and shrunk shrunk shrunk for the last 3 decades?

I'm sure your intentions are honourable, but you're being a goose.

Pass-A-Frozo

Could be another type to add to your name :)

Theyre talking about it being based in Sunny Richmond, however i dont know bout the short runway with full loads...?

Aussie

Here are Australian forces "helping" Iraq at great expense, and the cocky new Iraqi Government tells us to take our wheat and shove it because we are not nice people to trade with.

Bring em home Johnny.

How many Herc J's could you get for $2B ?!

Using carrying the Abrams as justification just shows what a stupid decision buying a bloody battle tank was in the first place.

'European Cold War era Armoured Corps Doctrine' philosophy in a 'post Soviet Oil-War dressed-up-as-terrorism' reality.

Are we going to fly four whole Abrams tanks to Iran and rock up on the doorstop of Tehran? Oh - the 'shock and awe' of it!

We could always sell everything, buy 5 nuclear attack submarines and park them off the coast of any country who considers invading us.

That would save a bucket load of money. All we have to do is find a country to sell us nuclear weapons. Shouldn’t be too hard???

TBT

numbskull

Bravo sir, well said.

As for the justification for the C-17s, the play has probably gone like this.

10*Gen Boddington-Smythe: "I say Smithers, what say we by some of these new fangled Abrams tanks, what?"

Fixer-upper Smithers: "Jolly good idea Sir. Here's the requisition, how many shall we order?

Some years later ....

Fixer-upper Smithers: " You know Sir, now that we've ordered these bluddy great tanks, perhaps we should think about how we're gonna transport the buggas!"

10*Gen Boddington-Smythe: "Top idea Smithers, now where's that requisition form, 4 should do."

As an aside, when the procurement of the Abrams tank was announced, an American defence analyst interviewed on ABC radio (PM/AM/The World Today?) expressed surprise that the ADF would waste money on such a large tank, when we had no capability to transport it, much less the need for it for the defence of Australia.

Capt Claret,

I remember the exact interview - around early 2004 I think. Mention was made of 'bang for buck' - wise how much further the money could have stretched on an upgrade to existing Leopards.

The Abrams was even a bit of a white elephant to the US - untl they got all empirical in the sandpit again.

G'day ****zu,

That's the one. Now one question, is that empirical or empire-ical? ;)

Abrams = Haliburton staff car. :hmm:

Too right.

And while your at it why aren't they using upgraded Sopwith Camels and 303 rifles. And whats going on with this DPCU business, real soldiers wore red coats. And everbody knows Australia has only ever fought wars on the Australian mainland.

I suggest you guys spend some time as a grunt with limited heavy lift support.

Four C17s wouldn't even get four tanks there - you're forgetting maint & u/s! Be lucky to have one op'able at any given time...

Are you speaking from experience or guessing what it is like?

Don’t buy into the C17 to carry the M1 – the likelihood of air transporting the M1 is very low. They can however take 3 (I believe) LAV 25 – that means they could deploy a Cav Tp with “stuff” with 3 maybe 4 C17’s. The tanks will be deployed by LPA/LHD’s. The C17’s would in all likelihood carry recon, advance party, airmobility/air manoeuvre assets. And of course gear – a hell of a lot of gear (bullets and beans).
****su, you’re a trafficker are you not? You state: “'European Cold War era Armoured Corps Doctrine' philosophy in a 'post Soviet Oil-War dressed-up-as-terrorism' reality.” Do you know what hardening and networking (H and N) is about? Do you know what an RPG does to a Leopard tank and what it does to an M1? Do you understand warfighting in complex terrain doctrine? Let me assure you, and you just have to trust me on this, that the M1 is a good tank for what the ADF is doing (current ops) and what it is likely to do in the future.
My view – the C17 is an excellent choice. 4 is about the right number. Of course that is to replace, not augment, the C130H.

Psycho Joe- why would any one want to spend time as a grunt with limited heavy support.Why not just outsource the soldiering to to any one of a dozen south east asian countries. Its not like its never been done before. Mercenaries are the second oldest profession in the world. They'll do it for a hell of a lot less!!

Like This do That- Australia did invade Iraq on pretty flimsy reasons. OK we did have to support our allies but it was just a grab for their oilfields!! Why did we buy the tanks in the first place? Do we seriously expect to use them in Australia, the Kimberlies or the jungles of Asia? Or did we simply buy them to support the USA when they invade other countries? What the hell are we doing in Iraq or Afghanistan anyway? In 1914-1918 hundreds of thousands of Australians died after the the Arch Duke of Austria was assasinated to begin WW1- why did so many Australians have to die for that? Those that can't learn from history are doomed to repeat it!! Let's face it, we don't need to spend billions to have the capability of sending armed forces to the other side of the world to defend Australia.

And anyway who in Australia will be able to fix the C-17's? The only one with any heavy maint experience and the facilities has been Qantas and they're about to send that capability to Asia.

OK, so I'll be the first to admit I'm no defence analyst but as a taxpayer I think our money could be spent better.

Well, I'd prefer an aircraft carrier...if anyone in CBR was asking.:rolleyes:

griffinblack

The RAAC role is close-support protection for small arms deployments - IAW the MOLE doctrine, but the Armour still has to be deployed.

I have followed the H&N arguments and agree it makes sense - but the question still remains about the numbers, and the mobility.

The Leopard is indeed vulnerable - and is really a dinosaur of the Cold War doctrine I mentioned.

Like you I agree that the C17 is an excellent, if expensive, platform and the likely roles are not to do with Abrams.

But, from a purely Air Power aspect, is the C17 the best use of funds?

Ummmm........ if Qantas were to send that work to Asia, the capability would remain in Australia and able to perform heavy maint on C-17s. But you aren't interested in Defence providing work for Australian Industry, now are you? :hmm:

The DMO project office would be simply given an agreement from Capability saying what they are to deliver. If the C-17 is chosen it will meet that. Purchases at the billions of dollars level would be directly approved by the Minister.

Numbskull: I'm quite happy for Australia to outsource the entire military if that's what the people want! It's a democracy. Why they don't use contractors for everything is that civilian organisations have a tendancy to not want to do something such as airdropping supplies or landing at an airfield where the risk from Surface-Air Fire is High. In fact if you can find one they will charge like a wounded bull (meaning the cheaper option would have been the in house option) due to monopolistic pricing. In fact for some of the short term heavy lift contracts, Australia could have BOUGHT the aircraft for the same amount as the charter fee! Also, Dangerous goods regulations prevent all our stuff that goes bang being carried on QANTAS aircraft. They do look at it.

Point0five, the cost of providing a heavy maint facility for 4 C-17 aircraft would be extemely prohibitive and would be an even larger waste of taxpayer money.

Frozo I would argue that most of the places that ADF personell are likely to encounter Surface-Air fire, we shouldn't be there in the first place. I agree that the ADF should provide humanitarian aid to those less fortunate than us in South East Asia and the Pcific Islands. I am reassured by your statement that they do look outsourcing these operations although I have never heard of it happening.

That may well be so, but seeing as we're talking about spending tax payers dollars let's just entertain the idea of providing jobs for skilled Australian aviation workers by investing in the upper end of the market. After all, half the posts on PPRuNe are about investing in Australia, both at the National level and in industry and personnel.

Quote "let's just entertain the idea of providing jobs for skilled Australian aviation workers by investing in the upper end of the market"

What planet are you on?

Two billion for four aircraft?

Only in the military....

Cutest of Borg:

The $2Bn is total project - so that means 4 actual aircraft, and also spares support, GSE, training, etc....



If you don't understand.....don't comment :hmm:

Don't forget the Steak Knives Scran!!!:} :ouch:

Numbskull, your words
'I would argue that most of the places that ADF personell are likely to encounter Surface-Air fire, we shouldn't be there in the first place'.
What planet are you on? So anywhere that can shoot at an aircraft we shouldn't go? Anyone who has an manpad, RPG or AK-47 can do what ever they want where ever they want? Timor had a serious air threat possibilitiy, are you saying the ADF shouldn't have gone there?
As for the C-17 would you prefer we send all our equipment (and it used to be man power too until common sense prevailed) on the cheapest bidder? So everyone knows what we are up to, what we have and when and where it is?

Buster - standard inventory........:rolleyes:



Don't forget the sheepskin seat covers you mean.......;)

[QUOTE][Anyone who has an manpad, RPG or AK-47 can do what ever they want where ever they want? Timor had a serious air threat possibilitiy, are you saying the ADF shouldn't have gone there?
/QUOTE]

Doesn't stop some looney with a rifle or (heaven forbid) something more lethal :eek: standing at the airfield boundary of any military airfield right here in Australia taking pot shots either. What then?:hmm:

The sheepskin seat covers are to tease the Kiwi exchange pilots:}

'scran' I think more TAXPAYERS should comment on things that are not understood then perhaps we may avoid expensive mistakes.
Have you had an innate understanding on the subject of every one of your 1500+ posts?
$2 billion is a LARGE amount of money to acquire four aircraft, no matter how you dress it up. I do agree with the requirement for ADF heavy lift.

But immediately prior..........


WTF!?!?!

A C17 ain't exactly a small aircraft. Any better options, or are we just going to limit ourselves to ill informed criticisms like the other instant experts here? .:hmm:
As previously mentioned, the cost quoted is not just for the aircraft alone.

Don't forget an aircraft such as the C-17 isn't used just for terminal to terminal operations such as an airline with it's 747. The aircraft has to be capable of carrying all that stuff, and unloading / loading itself without GSE.
Then throw in military specific fitment such as EW. Anything Milspec and you can add a few zero's on the end. However, it's probably best to wait to see what the project actually includes (e.g. I know for a fact it includes mission planning systems etc too).

With respect, Scran old man, Borg's question isn't exactly unreasonable.

For us non-Ron types, when we read that XYZ airlines has placed an order for its first four 747s, say, we don't usually expect to read that they're paying in the billions for them.

So why is it that when it comes to military, four aircraft cost that much?

Yes I know the standard bumph about training, spares, etc. but doesn't my hypothetical airline also have to cop those costs?

I think I, Borg and others are just worried about the $2000 hammers and $1m khazis and someone saying 'Government contract = rip-off opportunity".

So how about helping us simple types "understand"?

But, if XYZ didn't have 747's to start with, then it probably would cost them billions. They just don't tell the punters.

I could be wrong (I was once before) but, doesn't the Govt. procurement mean that they include the entire package? XYZ would not readily admit the total cost due to their interests being none of their competitors business. XYZ's purchase may include spares, but does it include training, sims, hangars, additional staffing, GSE, etc

Just a thought...

I know what you can get for $1 billion. 11 thirty-five year old helos with some glass in them that won't talk to its weapon systems. Hey, but everythings ok, just don't fly this billion dollar squadron at night or in IMC. How many A-4G's could 805 squadron had with a Billion bucks!!!!

So the C-17 seems like great value to me, I mean it might cost $2 billion dollars to get these bad boys in RAAF colours however they are a state of the art, and a proven platform. C-17 works!!!!!!

Taildragger, Rokape,


See comments by Pass-a-frozo, Capt Sand Dune, Buster etc.


This is a big aircraft, capable of landing on semi-prepared (dirt) strips, in areas where nasty people shoot at you.......

The total cost (because we have to explain the FULL amount, not hide costs like Qantas etc as described by Buster) includes spares for a certain number of years, initial crew training (and probably continuity training in a simulator - so we don't have to buy one), special GSE for that aircraft, probably some maintenance support etc.

In other words, we have to buy enough "stuff" to support the aircraft.

Don't get me wrong - they are expensive - but ask the Brits what they think of theirs. Initially they "leased" them (for an amount close to the cost of buying them I understand) but have now decided that the aircraft is so good they will buy them (and one other they hope) outright.


And Wessex - thats what you get for buying second hand. Mind you, they Kiwis seem to get theirs to work................

Australian defence procurement practice deserves close scrutiny and more public interest should be welcomed- an apathetic, ill-informed public could induce a New Zealand syndrome ( granted environmental factors and gene pools come into play accross the Tasman aswell ).

Life support costs for a programme should be self-explanatory- a good close to home example of how these costs factor are recent Indonesian bargain basement purchases of Russian aircraft. Look cheap up front, paid for with a little hard currency and a little poultry trade, but come without appropriate support infrastructure or even weapons!

On the other side of the coin, what would the Singaporians get for two billion? Their procurement policy of buying off the shelf equipment, with hard negotiations gets them considerable bang-for-buck.

Hopefully, two billion will get the RAAF six of these wonderful aircraft. Their primary purpose aside, for the next 40 years they will be synonymous in the region for disaster relief and humanitarian operations; aswell as very useful aircraft in getting Australian and New Zealand ( free of charge ) expatriates out of harms way quickly.

As a short postscript, perhaps Flight Looey Frozo will be kept out of the civilian world a little longer by the C17. :}

If you want to look at the "package" you have to wait until the project actually formally chooses the C-17, and announces it. This has not happened.

As for per unit cost, what would the cost of the A380 be per aircraft if we included all the runway works at Aussie airports, changes to terminals, cost of every aerobridge it will use, any new tools, training of all maint pers etc. That is what is included in Aussie defence projects. Otherwise you get what happens with the Indonesians - they buy something, it works fine for the first 6 months then 3/4's of their SQN sit idle , U/S on the tarmac - or they have submarines that are left as very expensive - incapable surface vessels.

I totally agree that defence procurement should be open to the eyes of the taxpayer (within reason - e.g. not announcing classified capability we purchase). Time will tell what this contract actually costs and what it includes.

Keep me in with the C17? Hmm.. interesting, might have to start being extra nice to DPO :} However more interestingly, I'll choose if I stay in based on pay and conditions etc. Notice the flying pay review outcome?

Gnadenburg,

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.

Wessex19 or Scran,

Word is that the Seasprite may be scrapped – do you or any other naval folk know the likelihood of this?


The most recent addition of Australian Aviation quotes the unit cost of a C17 at A$220m. That would put four acft at A$880. I am not a procurement expert, but I understand project costs are normally double the acft costs- I am happy if anyone can correct that assumption. If that is the case, that would put the procurement for the strategic lift capability (for 4 acft) at A$1.75 – A$1.8 billion dollars.

Don’t necessarily be fooled by a “good deal”. If we do get a good deal, we are probably purchasing the capability on the cheap (without the associated equipment, training, documentation etc) or we will get screwed with the support costs – after all manufacturers don’t give away their stuff, they will always turn a profit, one way or another. We have recent projects as testament to that.