NATO annouces its intent to buy Boeing C-17s
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NATO annouces its intent to buy Boeing C-17s
A reader gave me a link to NATO's Website, one that links to a September 12 2006 Press Conference given by NATO about their intention to purchase Boeing C-17s.
It is here: http://www.nato.int/docu/speech/2006/s060912a.htm
I was shocked to read it. It looks just like what is going on here in Canada in several aspects.
An unidentified journalist from the News Agency of Ukraine asks :
"need some additional (inaudible)... so let me ask my question. My question is, why Boeing? So was there any open tender announced and why Boeing was chosen, not any other(?) producer. And another part of the question (inaudible)..., after the project will be finalized does mean that NATO cooperation with these other partners, (inaudible)... for example, will be reduced?"
Marshall S. Billingslea, Assistant Secretary General for Defence Investment, replied:
"Good question and let me clarify. This was not one of these things where NATO suddenly went sole-source to one particular company. This decision today, the announcement today and the release of the LOI today in fact is the result of more than a year of analysis conducted into the economics and the capabilities associated with long range air-to-air refuelable outsize cargo lift.
In other words, when you are looking at that class of aircraft we came to the conclusion that there are three different airframes in existence today which are in that class. One of them airframes if the Antonov 124, which a number of nations operate, and which are also available for leasing and contracting on the commercial market.
The C-17 aircraft is another one that's in that class, which is not available today, to my knowledge, for commercial lease. Only for acquisition. And then the C-5 aircraft is the grandfather of outsize cargo strategic lift and that is certainly another aircraft that we know is in the class.
But there are no other aircraft in existence today with those kinds of specifications.
Now as you may know, NATO has been focusing on the shortfall associated with strategic lift for some time, and NATO, in fact, moved forward to cement a deal with one of those aircraft, the Antonov 124 already. So we have over the past several years, resulting in an actual lease arrangement with the SALIS initiative a standing flying hour contract with Antonovs for 2000 flying hours and several nations in that.
So you have already NATO and several of those nations working with the Antonov. The C-5 was a plane that we looked at, but decided, for a number of reasons, to turn our attention instead to the C-17, because that was the only other available lifter in this class, and you see now today NATO moving forward to start the negotiations for an arrangement on the C-17.
So the way you need to look at this is that NATO is, in fact, already trying to diversify the different kinds of air lifters that we have. We've got the Antonovs. Now we would like to get an additional kind of airframe. And this gets back to Nick's question, that is why you should precisely expect that we're going to be open to further airframes when additional kinds of lifters are fielded by different companies.
This initiative today, to create the NATO Strategic Airlift Capability in no way says anything about the SALIS arrangement. It certainly does not prejudge any aspect of that arrangement. We need those flying hours on the Antonovs and we continue to expect that the nations are going to use those flying hours and many NATO allies are big, big consumers of Antonov flying hours for military missions.
So there is, even with this acquisition, there is more demand than there is supply on the market."
I'd like to make a few comments on this reply.
First of all, Mr Billingslea says that they looked only at air-to-air refuelable aircraft. This would seem to eliminate the AN-124 wouldn't it? However, what use is there in having an aircraft with an Air-to-Air refuelable capability if there is no aircraft capable of refuelling it in the air?. This is the case of the UK, which leased 4 C-17 which are technically refuelable in the air. However, not only does the Lease contract between Boeing and the UK forbid such refuelling but there presently is no aircraft in the UK’s inventory that is capable of refuelling the C-17 in the air.
In the case of NATO, it will take US aircraft to refuel the C-17s.
Then Mr Billingslea adds that there are no other aircraft in that category. NATO, like Canada, seems to have amnesia when it comes to the existence of the Ilyushin 76MF-90. Unless their definition of “outsize” excludes an aircraft with 400 cubic meters of freight hold volume, and a 60 ton payload?
About the C-17, Mr Billingslea says:
“it is a fairly incredible machine, which can fly long distances, including, of course, an air-to-air refuelling capability. It can land without much of a runway. It can land on short runways, on dirt runways. And it can transport huge quantities of troops, or hardware, helicopters or tanks, special operations forces and what have you”
This is also a fair description of the Ilyushin 76. Although the standard IL-76MF does not have an air-to-air refuelling capacity by choice, the Beriev A-50 Mainstay, which is based on an IL-76 airframe, does. Any customer who would want an IL-76MF with a refuelling probe, could get one. I must add that there is also an Air-to-Air refueller version of the IL-76, the IL-78 Midas that NATO is well aware of. By having both, NATO could not only have the strategic aircraft but also its refueller, something it presently does not have.
This process looks identical to the one going on in Canada.
1) A Strategic Airlifter is being purchased without any form of open bidding
2) The Boeing C-17 is chosen
3) The existence of the Tashkent built Strategic Airlifter, the IL-76, of which over 960 have been built, and which is still in production is “forgotten” by NATO as a possible contender against the Boeing C-17
Are we certain the Cold War is really over?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
A few notes on Mr Billingslea, taken right off the NATO Website.
Prior to assuming the position of ASG(DI) in January, 2004, Marshall Billingslea served as the Acting Assistant U.S. Secretary of Defense for Special Operations / Low-Intensity Conflict. As such, he was the principal civilian advisor to the U.S. Secretary of Defense on Special Operations Forces and counter-terrorism efforts against al’Qaida and other terrorist groups. Mr. Billingslea had overall responsiblity for the supervision of all special operations activities of the Department of Defense, and served as the Co-Chairman of the Board of Directors of U.S. Special Operations Command. In November, 2003, Mr. Billingslea received from Secretary Rumsfeld the Medal for Distinguished Public Service for his work in counter-terrorism.
Prior to that, Mr. Billingslea was the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Negotiations Policy – the U.S. Secretary of Defense’s chief negotiator for all major international agreements. He was the principal DoD representative on numerous U.S. arms control delegations, and the U.S. Head of Delegation for Transparency and Verification negotiations with the Russian Federation in connection with the Moscow Treaty on Strategic Nuclear Reductions.
Before joining Secretary Rumsfeld’s Pentagon staff, Mr. Billingslea served for over six years as the Senior Professional Staff Member for National Security Affairs on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He was the senior advisor to the Chairman and members of the Committee on all proliferation, arms control, defense, intelligence, and counter-terrorism issues within the Committee’s purview. Further, Mr. Billingslea conducted day-to-day oversight of the U.S. arms sales process, and was responsible for reviewing and approving all exports licensed under the U.S. Munitions List and the Arms Export Control Act.
Not exactly an impartial person is it?
It is here: http://www.nato.int/docu/speech/2006/s060912a.htm
I was shocked to read it. It looks just like what is going on here in Canada in several aspects.
An unidentified journalist from the News Agency of Ukraine asks :
"need some additional (inaudible)... so let me ask my question. My question is, why Boeing? So was there any open tender announced and why Boeing was chosen, not any other(?) producer. And another part of the question (inaudible)..., after the project will be finalized does mean that NATO cooperation with these other partners, (inaudible)... for example, will be reduced?"
Marshall S. Billingslea, Assistant Secretary General for Defence Investment, replied:
"Good question and let me clarify. This was not one of these things where NATO suddenly went sole-source to one particular company. This decision today, the announcement today and the release of the LOI today in fact is the result of more than a year of analysis conducted into the economics and the capabilities associated with long range air-to-air refuelable outsize cargo lift.
In other words, when you are looking at that class of aircraft we came to the conclusion that there are three different airframes in existence today which are in that class. One of them airframes if the Antonov 124, which a number of nations operate, and which are also available for leasing and contracting on the commercial market.
The C-17 aircraft is another one that's in that class, which is not available today, to my knowledge, for commercial lease. Only for acquisition. And then the C-5 aircraft is the grandfather of outsize cargo strategic lift and that is certainly another aircraft that we know is in the class.
But there are no other aircraft in existence today with those kinds of specifications.
Now as you may know, NATO has been focusing on the shortfall associated with strategic lift for some time, and NATO, in fact, moved forward to cement a deal with one of those aircraft, the Antonov 124 already. So we have over the past several years, resulting in an actual lease arrangement with the SALIS initiative a standing flying hour contract with Antonovs for 2000 flying hours and several nations in that.
So you have already NATO and several of those nations working with the Antonov. The C-5 was a plane that we looked at, but decided, for a number of reasons, to turn our attention instead to the C-17, because that was the only other available lifter in this class, and you see now today NATO moving forward to start the negotiations for an arrangement on the C-17.
So the way you need to look at this is that NATO is, in fact, already trying to diversify the different kinds of air lifters that we have. We've got the Antonovs. Now we would like to get an additional kind of airframe. And this gets back to Nick's question, that is why you should precisely expect that we're going to be open to further airframes when additional kinds of lifters are fielded by different companies.
This initiative today, to create the NATO Strategic Airlift Capability in no way says anything about the SALIS arrangement. It certainly does not prejudge any aspect of that arrangement. We need those flying hours on the Antonovs and we continue to expect that the nations are going to use those flying hours and many NATO allies are big, big consumers of Antonov flying hours for military missions.
So there is, even with this acquisition, there is more demand than there is supply on the market."
I'd like to make a few comments on this reply.
First of all, Mr Billingslea says that they looked only at air-to-air refuelable aircraft. This would seem to eliminate the AN-124 wouldn't it? However, what use is there in having an aircraft with an Air-to-Air refuelable capability if there is no aircraft capable of refuelling it in the air?. This is the case of the UK, which leased 4 C-17 which are technically refuelable in the air. However, not only does the Lease contract between Boeing and the UK forbid such refuelling but there presently is no aircraft in the UK’s inventory that is capable of refuelling the C-17 in the air.
In the case of NATO, it will take US aircraft to refuel the C-17s.
Then Mr Billingslea adds that there are no other aircraft in that category. NATO, like Canada, seems to have amnesia when it comes to the existence of the Ilyushin 76MF-90. Unless their definition of “outsize” excludes an aircraft with 400 cubic meters of freight hold volume, and a 60 ton payload?
About the C-17, Mr Billingslea says:
“it is a fairly incredible machine, which can fly long distances, including, of course, an air-to-air refuelling capability. It can land without much of a runway. It can land on short runways, on dirt runways. And it can transport huge quantities of troops, or hardware, helicopters or tanks, special operations forces and what have you”
This is also a fair description of the Ilyushin 76. Although the standard IL-76MF does not have an air-to-air refuelling capacity by choice, the Beriev A-50 Mainstay, which is based on an IL-76 airframe, does. Any customer who would want an IL-76MF with a refuelling probe, could get one. I must add that there is also an Air-to-Air refueller version of the IL-76, the IL-78 Midas that NATO is well aware of. By having both, NATO could not only have the strategic aircraft but also its refueller, something it presently does not have.
This process looks identical to the one going on in Canada.
1) A Strategic Airlifter is being purchased without any form of open bidding
2) The Boeing C-17 is chosen
3) The existence of the Tashkent built Strategic Airlifter, the IL-76, of which over 960 have been built, and which is still in production is “forgotten” by NATO as a possible contender against the Boeing C-17
Are we certain the Cold War is really over?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
A few notes on Mr Billingslea, taken right off the NATO Website.
Prior to assuming the position of ASG(DI) in January, 2004, Marshall Billingslea served as the Acting Assistant U.S. Secretary of Defense for Special Operations / Low-Intensity Conflict. As such, he was the principal civilian advisor to the U.S. Secretary of Defense on Special Operations Forces and counter-terrorism efforts against al’Qaida and other terrorist groups. Mr. Billingslea had overall responsiblity for the supervision of all special operations activities of the Department of Defense, and served as the Co-Chairman of the Board of Directors of U.S. Special Operations Command. In November, 2003, Mr. Billingslea received from Secretary Rumsfeld the Medal for Distinguished Public Service for his work in counter-terrorism.
Prior to that, Mr. Billingslea was the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Negotiations Policy – the U.S. Secretary of Defense’s chief negotiator for all major international agreements. He was the principal DoD representative on numerous U.S. arms control delegations, and the U.S. Head of Delegation for Transparency and Verification negotiations with the Russian Federation in connection with the Moscow Treaty on Strategic Nuclear Reductions.
Before joining Secretary Rumsfeld’s Pentagon staff, Mr. Billingslea served for over six years as the Senior Professional Staff Member for National Security Affairs on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He was the senior advisor to the Chairman and members of the Committee on all proliferation, arms control, defense, intelligence, and counter-terrorism issues within the Committee’s purview. Further, Mr. Billingslea conducted day-to-day oversight of the U.S. arms sales process, and was responsible for reviewing and approving all exports licensed under the U.S. Munitions List and the Arms Export Control Act.
Not exactly an impartial person is it?
Last edited by Minorite invisible; 11th Nov 2006 at 18:16. Reason: typos
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Under milk wood
Age: 64
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Given that the majority of NATO members don't participate in NATO operations, what will the C-17s be used for? Demonstrating how good NATO countries are at demonstrating how good NATO countries are? Most of the time they use their troops and equipment for exercises.
Presumably these will be operated in a similar manner to the NATO-OTAN E-3 AWACS?
A pity that the Loadmaster won't be available for a few years yet. So the C-17 it is then.
A pity that the Loadmaster won't be available for a few years yet. So the C-17 it is then.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Magnetogorsk
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Minorite Retort
I share MI's concerns about the great C-17 stitch-up that is going on by Boeing in a desperate attempt to keep the production line going.
It is incredible that the USAF is so determined to shut down and throw away the C-17 line – an insanely valuable national asset despite all that is wrong with that aircraft – while still finding money to spend on cra@p like ABL, NMD, JSF and so many other three-letter words...
It's not surprising therefore that Boeing is doing everything it can to keep the line alive, but its tactics – such as declaring two aircraft for Sweden – have not always shown a good grasp of reality outside the US market where customers don't have billions to take out and burn in the streets like the US DoD does.
It is a shame that the C-17 procurement in Canada become so blatantly politicised but that seems to be pretty much the way every procurement is conducted there these days...good luck with those S-92s.
At the same time one can't wave too much of a flag for the Il-76 because that aircraft is *not* in production - as evidenced by the slow collapse of the recent Chinese order for aircraft that can't be built because the factories have rusted over.
Beyond that, does anyone believe that NATO will ever get its act together and find the money to make this C-17 project a reality? Look at what's happening with AGS....nothing is happening, that's what - 10 years of nothing. All because someone somewhere has to put their hand in their pocket and fork out a huge amount of cash that they don't actually have.
Isn't that the template for what will happen to the C-17s?
VC
It is incredible that the USAF is so determined to shut down and throw away the C-17 line – an insanely valuable national asset despite all that is wrong with that aircraft – while still finding money to spend on cra@p like ABL, NMD, JSF and so many other three-letter words...
It's not surprising therefore that Boeing is doing everything it can to keep the line alive, but its tactics – such as declaring two aircraft for Sweden – have not always shown a good grasp of reality outside the US market where customers don't have billions to take out and burn in the streets like the US DoD does.
It is a shame that the C-17 procurement in Canada become so blatantly politicised but that seems to be pretty much the way every procurement is conducted there these days...good luck with those S-92s.
At the same time one can't wave too much of a flag for the Il-76 because that aircraft is *not* in production - as evidenced by the slow collapse of the recent Chinese order for aircraft that can't be built because the factories have rusted over.
Beyond that, does anyone believe that NATO will ever get its act together and find the money to make this C-17 project a reality? Look at what's happening with AGS....nothing is happening, that's what - 10 years of nothing. All because someone somewhere has to put their hand in their pocket and fork out a huge amount of cash that they don't actually have.
Isn't that the template for what will happen to the C-17s?
VC
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where is the European press ?
Donald Rumsfeld, not content with milking his own taxpayers of all they were worth on unnecessary military spending, not content with raising the military budget in his own country and filling the pockets of his friends in the Military-Industrial establishment in the USA thanks to a bogus war that he started on bogus excuses, sends his good friend and associate Mr Marshall S. Billingslea to Europe as Assistant Secretary General for Defence Investment in NATO.
Mr Billingslea can keep a stone face, while telling Europeans at a NATO press conference that the Boeing C-17, whose plant is about to be closed for lack of orders, is a good deal for NATO.
And the only one present who asked an appropriate question was a Ukrainian journalist? (He was told, "dont worry, we'll give you a small fish to eat, but we're getting the C-17")
The C-17 plant was due to close this past summer for lack of orders so American politicians, ambassadors, lobbyists and their kind went into high gear to try to save the plant and its California high tech jobs. They were able to squeeze 4 orders out of Australia and its accommodating Government, 4 orders out of Stephen Harpers pro-American Conservative Government in Canada and one extra one out Tony Blair’s Government, in addition to 3 that Rumsfeld got out of the Pentagon, thanks to his Iraq war and its never ending need for more Strategic transport.
Now a Rumsfeld appointee is attempting to convince NATO that not only it needs C-17s but that there is no alternative.
I think that Ukraine has about 50 Strategic Aircraft on its Military inventory that it would be too happy to press into service for NATO service for one alternative. There are probably others, but please, the European journalists wake-up!
Mr Billingslea can keep a stone face, while telling Europeans at a NATO press conference that the Boeing C-17, whose plant is about to be closed for lack of orders, is a good deal for NATO.
And the only one present who asked an appropriate question was a Ukrainian journalist? (He was told, "dont worry, we'll give you a small fish to eat, but we're getting the C-17")
The C-17 plant was due to close this past summer for lack of orders so American politicians, ambassadors, lobbyists and their kind went into high gear to try to save the plant and its California high tech jobs. They were able to squeeze 4 orders out of Australia and its accommodating Government, 4 orders out of Stephen Harpers pro-American Conservative Government in Canada and one extra one out Tony Blair’s Government, in addition to 3 that Rumsfeld got out of the Pentagon, thanks to his Iraq war and its never ending need for more Strategic transport.
Now a Rumsfeld appointee is attempting to convince NATO that not only it needs C-17s but that there is no alternative.
I think that Ukraine has about 50 Strategic Aircraft on its Military inventory that it would be too happy to press into service for NATO service for one alternative. There are probably others, but please, the European journalists wake-up!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Some random thoughts/questions on either the NATO intent or Canada's C-17 purchase:
What will Canada get in return for purchasing the C-17? What was the pressure/political intrigue that brought about the intent to buy Boeing? Did the C-17 meet Canada's needs? Did anyone else's that is currently in production?
Why did the RAF lease the four C-17s? Why did the lease include the no AAR clause?
Did/does the NATO minister mentioned have the authority to purchase a multi-billion a/c program on his own authority or do the member nations get a say?
Who provides the tanker support now to the NATO-OTAN E-3 force?
What other in-production strat airlift aircraft are available NOW for purchase?
If the Minister had been any other nationality than American and the a/c manufacturer had been other than US, would you still have the same sense of outrage?
Edit: With the exception of, perhaps, the last question, I genuinely am looking for the answers and not to insult anyone. The last one is meant to mildly barbed, not offensive.......
What will Canada get in return for purchasing the C-17? What was the pressure/political intrigue that brought about the intent to buy Boeing? Did the C-17 meet Canada's needs? Did anyone else's that is currently in production?
Why did the RAF lease the four C-17s? Why did the lease include the no AAR clause?
Did/does the NATO minister mentioned have the authority to purchase a multi-billion a/c program on his own authority or do the member nations get a say?
Who provides the tanker support now to the NATO-OTAN E-3 force?
What other in-production strat airlift aircraft are available NOW for purchase?
If the Minister had been any other nationality than American and the a/c manufacturer had been other than US, would you still have the same sense of outrage?
Edit: With the exception of, perhaps, the last question, I genuinely am looking for the answers and not to insult anyone. The last one is meant to mildly barbed, not offensive.......
Last edited by brickhistory; 12th Nov 2006 at 21:50.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
About the questions......
Good questions.
1) Canada asked for Industrial returns equal to the amount of the contract. But it is well known that industrial returns are made possible by over billing the initial product, and ultimately, it is the buying country's taxpayers that foot the bill. These are requirements that politicians impose on sellers to make taxpayers accept an unpopular purchase (yes it costs a fortune, we don’t really need it but it will provide you with good jobs). Well I can think of many better job creating methods of spending close to 4 billion dollars of public money.
2) Normally, when the military need some piece of hardware, there is a paper trail that goes back years where the brass have to justify their needs, and write up the specifications that the needed piece of hardware must have. I found no trace of Canada’s military even hinting at wanting a new strategic aircraft in 2005, let alone purchase one. Then suddenly the MDN publishes in June 2006 version 1.0 of a Statement of Requirements for a Strategic Aircraft that looks exactly like a C-17 and for which we publish an ACAN (Advance Contract Award Notice) in July 2006, less than a month later. All this a few months after the US ambassador had publicly suggested we should get some, 3 months after one was demonstrated in Ottawa to the MDN and just when the Boeing C-17 plant was due to close (Australia ordered theirs in March 2006) and a few months after a new Government very eager to please Washington takes power in Canada.
3) Ilyushin, based in Tashkent, Uzbekistan, produces the IL-76 which, like the C-17 is a hybrid strategic/tactical airlifter. Antonov, in Kiev, Ukraine, produces the AN-70, which is nearing certification.
4) I’ll let someone else answer for the RAF and its C-17s. I am certain someone will
5) The NATO Minister most likely does not have single authority. But we only see the surface of what goes on and member nations do get a say. In this case, those that favour the purchase are mostly, as far as I can gather, Eastern Europe new members who are more prone to US pressure than the others.
6) The US provides tanker support to NATO E3s
7) The Ilyushin IL-76 is in production NOW. The AN-70 is flying and will be in production soon
8) As for the Minister, his nationality and his choice of aircraft: I must state that the timing of the NATO LOI with the fact that Boeing needed those orders now in order to decide between closing in 2006 and staying open for another 24 months, combined with the Ministers’ Resume, more than his nationality, increased my sense of outrage.
1) Canada asked for Industrial returns equal to the amount of the contract. But it is well known that industrial returns are made possible by over billing the initial product, and ultimately, it is the buying country's taxpayers that foot the bill. These are requirements that politicians impose on sellers to make taxpayers accept an unpopular purchase (yes it costs a fortune, we don’t really need it but it will provide you with good jobs). Well I can think of many better job creating methods of spending close to 4 billion dollars of public money.
2) Normally, when the military need some piece of hardware, there is a paper trail that goes back years where the brass have to justify their needs, and write up the specifications that the needed piece of hardware must have. I found no trace of Canada’s military even hinting at wanting a new strategic aircraft in 2005, let alone purchase one. Then suddenly the MDN publishes in June 2006 version 1.0 of a Statement of Requirements for a Strategic Aircraft that looks exactly like a C-17 and for which we publish an ACAN (Advance Contract Award Notice) in July 2006, less than a month later. All this a few months after the US ambassador had publicly suggested we should get some, 3 months after one was demonstrated in Ottawa to the MDN and just when the Boeing C-17 plant was due to close (Australia ordered theirs in March 2006) and a few months after a new Government very eager to please Washington takes power in Canada.
3) Ilyushin, based in Tashkent, Uzbekistan, produces the IL-76 which, like the C-17 is a hybrid strategic/tactical airlifter. Antonov, in Kiev, Ukraine, produces the AN-70, which is nearing certification.
4) I’ll let someone else answer for the RAF and its C-17s. I am certain someone will
5) The NATO Minister most likely does not have single authority. But we only see the surface of what goes on and member nations do get a say. In this case, those that favour the purchase are mostly, as far as I can gather, Eastern Europe new members who are more prone to US pressure than the others.
6) The US provides tanker support to NATO E3s
7) The Ilyushin IL-76 is in production NOW. The AN-70 is flying and will be in production soon
8) As for the Minister, his nationality and his choice of aircraft: I must state that the timing of the NATO LOI with the fact that Boeing needed those orders now in order to decide between closing in 2006 and staying open for another 24 months, combined with the Ministers’ Resume, more than his nationality, increased my sense of outrage.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: uk(occasionally)
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Am I missing something? Now I'm not a C17 expert but from afar it looks like this:
1. RAF desperately needs more airlift.
2. MOD makes surprisingly quick decision to lease C17s, oreders them and gets them.
3. C17s arrive and are so useful we massively overfly the projected hours and in fact decide we need another one.
Isnt this a good thing? Or were we horribly manipulated by those evil Yanks?
Oh and I guess:
4. NATO sees the above, is also massively short of airlift and decide to do something similar (except buy straight away).
I'm struggling to see the negatives here.
1. RAF desperately needs more airlift.
2. MOD makes surprisingly quick decision to lease C17s, oreders them and gets them.
3. C17s arrive and are so useful we massively overfly the projected hours and in fact decide we need another one.
Isnt this a good thing? Or were we horribly manipulated by those evil Yanks?
Oh and I guess:
4. NATO sees the above, is also massively short of airlift and decide to do something similar (except buy straight away).
I'm struggling to see the negatives here.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Who/how did Canada get 'forced' to buy anything? But if they wanted a quicker fill of its airlift need, why would the C-17 not be the choice now? I do not know the domestic politics in Canada well to answer this. But to say its been a 'few months' from a government desparately eager to please Washington seemed a bit of a stretch.......
If the US already provides the tanker support for the NATO E-3 component, why was it 'shady' for that consideration for a NATO C-17 buy? If it ever happens? If the C-17 is purchased by NATO, what other NATO country could support the A/R needs? Don't think it has been tested/ configured for probe/drogue, but will defer to anyone more knowledgable.
As posted by another, the IL-76 is not being churned out. What is the fact of the matter? If not, then what other strat airlifter is being produced right now? Not in a few years, but now?
Would Boeing bend a few arms to keep the line going? I'd think so, but to infer skullduggery (have NEVER worked that word into a sentence before!) seems a little much.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Boeing C-17 first flew on September 15 1991. It’s a fine aircraft, one of the best in the World. Like most aircraft it had teething problems in its early days, but those have since been resolved, and turned what was initially called a failure into a great success.
The one aspect where the Boeing C-17 does not shine is its cost. Estimates vary between 190 million to 330 million dollars, according to whom you ask, but all agree it’s an expensive aircraft for the military.
If you compare it in size to a civilian aircraft, it is close to a Boeing 777-200, not in external dimensions, but in Max Take Off Weight, which is the true measure of the size of an aircraft. A Boeing 777-200 costs between 180 and 240 million dollars. The C-17 is in line with its civilian counterparts as far as price.
Where they differ is that the airlines, to be able to pay for such high priced investments, fly them over 5000 hours a year, and do so with fare paying passengers or cargo on board. The military on the other hand, probably fly theirs around 750 hours a year in peacetime, maybe 1500 hours/year in wartime if the United States and Great Britain can be considered at war today.
Because of its very high acquisition cost, no country other than the United States ever purchased the C-17 between 1991 and 2006, during 15 years it was in production. About 180 aircraft were delivered to the United States during that time. In 2000, Great Britain leased 4 C-17s. It had long wanted the aircraft but could not afford to purchase them. It eventually came to a lease agreement with Boeing that more or less fell within its budget. That is what the Britsh taxpayers were led to think anyway. There were huge cost overruns, that were blamed on the war that began the following year. In 2006 the last American orders were about to be delivered and Boeing began considering closing its Long Beach plant that manufactured the C-17 if no more orders came in.
Then out of the blue, after 15 years with zero foreign sales, in a six month period, from March 2006 to September 2006, Great Britain announces that not only it will purchase its 4 leased aircraft but order a fifth, Australia announces the purchase of 4 C-17s, Canada announces it also wants 4 of them and NATO emits a letter of intent for another 4. And everyone needs them yesterday.
What happened suddenly? Did they go on sale? Did everyone suddenly discover how great the aircraft was? Did World War Three begin? Not that I know of.
Then why this sudden interest?
The one aspect where the Boeing C-17 does not shine is its cost. Estimates vary between 190 million to 330 million dollars, according to whom you ask, but all agree it’s an expensive aircraft for the military.
If you compare it in size to a civilian aircraft, it is close to a Boeing 777-200, not in external dimensions, but in Max Take Off Weight, which is the true measure of the size of an aircraft. A Boeing 777-200 costs between 180 and 240 million dollars. The C-17 is in line with its civilian counterparts as far as price.
Where they differ is that the airlines, to be able to pay for such high priced investments, fly them over 5000 hours a year, and do so with fare paying passengers or cargo on board. The military on the other hand, probably fly theirs around 750 hours a year in peacetime, maybe 1500 hours/year in wartime if the United States and Great Britain can be considered at war today.
Because of its very high acquisition cost, no country other than the United States ever purchased the C-17 between 1991 and 2006, during 15 years it was in production. About 180 aircraft were delivered to the United States during that time. In 2000, Great Britain leased 4 C-17s. It had long wanted the aircraft but could not afford to purchase them. It eventually came to a lease agreement with Boeing that more or less fell within its budget. That is what the Britsh taxpayers were led to think anyway. There were huge cost overruns, that were blamed on the war that began the following year. In 2006 the last American orders were about to be delivered and Boeing began considering closing its Long Beach plant that manufactured the C-17 if no more orders came in.
Then out of the blue, after 15 years with zero foreign sales, in a six month period, from March 2006 to September 2006, Great Britain announces that not only it will purchase its 4 leased aircraft but order a fifth, Australia announces the purchase of 4 C-17s, Canada announces it also wants 4 of them and NATO emits a letter of intent for another 4. And everyone needs them yesterday.
What happened suddenly? Did they go on sale? Did everyone suddenly discover how great the aircraft was? Did World War Three begin? Not that I know of.
Then why this sudden interest?
Last edited by Minorite invisible; 13th Nov 2006 at 19:34. Reason: typos
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: In the dark
Posts: 391
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why did the RAF lease the four C-17s? Why did the lease include the no AAR clause?
The reason the RAF does not carry out AAR with the C17 is we do not have any aircraft to refuel them from. The additional costs and hassle of using USAF tankers to refuel from was no doubts taken into account. All 4 RAF C17 have the long range tanks giving them suitable endurance for the task task at hand. The reality is the crews and aircraft would be far too busy to keep up currency anyway. They have a difficult enough time trying to keep crews current in NVG, which is far more important than AR.
Then out of the blue, after 15 years with zero foreign sales, in a six month period, from March 2006 to September 2006, Great Britain announces that not only it will purchase its 4 leased aircraft but order a fifth, Australia announces the purchase of 4 C-17s, Canada announces it also wants 4 of them and NATO emits a letter of intent for another 4. And everyone needs them yesterday.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: ball gazing
Posts: 296
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Then out of the blue, after 15 years with zero foreign sales, in a six month period, from March 2006 to September 2006, Great Britain announces that not only it will purchase its 4 leased aircraft but order a fifth
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IL-76 production
Jordan is still waiting for the two they ordered in Aug 2005, and China has yet to see any of the 38 they ordered in Sept 2005. However, the Russian Air Force just took delivery of two Upgraded IL-76, with the Perm PS-90 engines.
Russia pulled out of the Antonov 70 program with the intention of falling back on the new IL-76. I don't see them letting the IL-76 program fall apart also. The Russian press has stated this month that Russia intends to repatriate the plant back on Russian soil to resume production because the production problems at the Tashkent plant are hurting Russian suppliers who manufacture 95% of the IL-76s parts. Plus Moscow needs its own new IL-76s.
The plant was originally in Russia and was only moved to Tashkent during WW 2 to keep it out of the German's reach. They were at the time mostly building the IL-2, a tankbuster, of which they built over 36,000 units.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Interesting information, thanks. So then as soon as the factory is moved, production resumes? Ok then, that should be soon.........
It took too long for the light to come on for me on this point, but here it is anyway:
Would you really expect NATO to buy a big ticket item from a non-NATO country? Leaving aside Boeing and any strong-arm tactics that may or may not have been used (what proof is there?), why would the IL be a contender for a NATO purchase?
It took too long for the light to come on for me on this point, but here it is anyway:
Would you really expect NATO to buy a big ticket item from a non-NATO country? Leaving aside Boeing and any strong-arm tactics that may or may not have been used (what proof is there?), why would the IL be a contender for a NATO purchase?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting information, thanks. So then as soon as the factory is moved, production resumes? Ok then, that should be soon.........
It took too long for the light to come on for me on this point, but here it is anyway:
Would you really expect NATO to buy a big ticket item from a non-NATO country? Leaving aside Boeing and any strong-arm tactics that may or may not have been used (what proof is there?), why would the IL be a contender for a NATO purchase?
It took too long for the light to come on for me on this point, but here it is anyway:
Would you really expect NATO to buy a big ticket item from a non-NATO country? Leaving aside Boeing and any strong-arm tactics that may or may not have been used (what proof is there?), why would the IL be a contender for a NATO purchase?
All I said is when Mr Bilingslea claims "But there are no other aircraft in existence today with those kinds of specifications" he has a very limited view of the World. I guess the IL-76 is built on the planet Mars. By the way that sentence is taken right out of the Boeing Website. Look it up and you will see where this man gets his cues from.
What I do say, is that its odd that NATO suddendly needs Boeing C-17s just when the Boeing plant is facing closure for lack of orders. What a happy coincidence. If you can believe that, why not believe that the item can purchased from Planet Mars or that the Ilyushin plant can produce IL-76s next month?
By the way, the last time the factory was moved in the middle of WW-2, production was barely slowed down, thanks to Stalin breathing down the necks of those in charge of IL-2 production. Its one of the greatest industrial feats in history and it involved this very plant. They did it once already so who knows.....
Stalin had written a telegram to the plant director stating the Soviet Army needed the IL-2 like bread and water it was his last warning.
Stalin also said "It takes a very brave man not to be a hero in the Soviet Army" I guess he held his factory managers to the same standards
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: UK
Age: 76
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C-17 Production
I seem to recall - in Flight I think - that Boeing were threatening to close to C-17 production unless they got some new orders. A hurry-up call that soemone decided not to ignore. If something is soon to become "unavailable" it clears the mind of doubts as to fit for purpose, do i really need it, etc.
I this case it worked.
I this case it worked.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Magnetogorsk
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ilyushin Illusion
MI
I respect your search for an alternative to the C-17, but the Il-76 isn't it...at least not in the form of a shiny flock of new-build aircraft.
But that is exactly what has already happened.
The TAPO production line in Uzbekistan hasn't built an Il-76 for years and years. Aircraft have been handed over in ones and twos from a stock of white tails that built up during the 1990s...all rolled out without ever actually being paid for.
There is a ‘plan’ to move the production line to Voronezh - but this is a pipe dream. This entire sector of Russia’s aircraft industry is a bankrupt museum exhibit. Not one rouble has been spent on actually moving the line, and the cost would be enormous. Even the incentive of China's major order hasn't made this happen.
You already make the point that Jordan’s two aircraft have not been handed over – why is that do you think? When, and if, Jordan does get its aircraft they will be scrubbed up and repainted second-hand jets.
The upgraded Russian aircraft are exactly that – UPGRADES. Re-engined pre-existing Il-76s…and how long has that PS-90 project taken? The actual worked stated in 2003 and the plan had been floating around for about 10 years before that.
The Russian press (SPARE ME) is the absolute least authoritative source for information on Russia's aviation industry...just show me one iota of evidence that Il-76 production is being moved from Tashkent. This has been reported for *years* - nothing has happened.
For the Il-76 to be any good to your case it needs to be in production right now. And it just isn’t.
And if the outlook is grim for the Il-76 you can pretty much forget about the An-70. Ukraine can't afford it and Russia will not support it because it's Ukrainian.
The one (crashed and rebuilt) prototype is sitting in a hangar somewhere, rusting. As with the Il-76 there are agreements, intentions-to-order and letters-of-intent up the wazoo regarding the bold future plans for the An-70. Forget them. It’s sad but true that not one meaningful thing has happened to this programme since the first flight back in 1994 (years later than planned).
Unless...the much-rumoured talks between Ukraine and China bear fruit and the An-70 (or something that looks a lot like it) is moved to China. That may well happen and if it does you can forget any NATO customers.
I am with your basic premise on the Canadian situation, but you need to leave the Il-76 and An-70 off your list.
VC
I respect your search for an alternative to the C-17, but the Il-76 isn't it...at least not in the form of a shiny flock of new-build aircraft.
Russia pulled out of the Antonov 70 program with the intention of falling back on the new IL-76. I don't see them letting the IL-76 program fall apart also.
The TAPO production line in Uzbekistan hasn't built an Il-76 for years and years. Aircraft have been handed over in ones and twos from a stock of white tails that built up during the 1990s...all rolled out without ever actually being paid for.
There is a ‘plan’ to move the production line to Voronezh - but this is a pipe dream. This entire sector of Russia’s aircraft industry is a bankrupt museum exhibit. Not one rouble has been spent on actually moving the line, and the cost would be enormous. Even the incentive of China's major order hasn't made this happen.
You already make the point that Jordan’s two aircraft have not been handed over – why is that do you think? When, and if, Jordan does get its aircraft they will be scrubbed up and repainted second-hand jets.
The upgraded Russian aircraft are exactly that – UPGRADES. Re-engined pre-existing Il-76s…and how long has that PS-90 project taken? The actual worked stated in 2003 and the plan had been floating around for about 10 years before that.
The Russian press (SPARE ME) is the absolute least authoritative source for information on Russia's aviation industry...just show me one iota of evidence that Il-76 production is being moved from Tashkent. This has been reported for *years* - nothing has happened.
For the Il-76 to be any good to your case it needs to be in production right now. And it just isn’t.
And if the outlook is grim for the Il-76 you can pretty much forget about the An-70. Ukraine can't afford it and Russia will not support it because it's Ukrainian.
The one (crashed and rebuilt) prototype is sitting in a hangar somewhere, rusting. As with the Il-76 there are agreements, intentions-to-order and letters-of-intent up the wazoo regarding the bold future plans for the An-70. Forget them. It’s sad but true that not one meaningful thing has happened to this programme since the first flight back in 1994 (years later than planned).
Unless...the much-rumoured talks between Ukraine and China bear fruit and the An-70 (or something that looks a lot like it) is moved to China. That may well happen and if it does you can forget any NATO customers.
I am with your basic premise on the Canadian situation, but you need to leave the Il-76 and An-70 off your list.
VC