C17 No 6 inbound
Thread Starter
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
From: Sitting on the toilet of Europe.... the UK
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,014
Likes: 30
From: Swindonshire
"Gordon Brown was a weak-willed Chancellor who failed to fund defence as well as he wanted to because of his refusal to seek conflict with Tony Blair over the matter." Discuss.
That's tongue in cheek, but let me play devil's advocate - have we seen something of a genuine (*) attempt on Broon's part to invest a bit more in defence since he knew he'd got the top job no matter how hard Tony's cronies might brief against him?
Not only 2 x CVF, but a C-17 that CAS probably wasn't really expecting plus several UORs for vehicles and kit for the army; ammo for the Typhoon's gun is suddenly not a funding problem....
Add to that the fact that unlike his predecessor he appears to have been more interested in visiting the troops to see what's going on (as opposed to visiting for some "jolly good photos in the press, eh, Cherie?" the next day) and his banging on about British values (which seem rather similar to some of the values of service and duty associated with the forces and the presbyterian church) actually appears to have a little substance. I wonder if he might turn out to be rather better than we'd hoped (although after the grinning big-eared charlatan he replaced, that's not hugely difficult).
That's tongue in cheek, but let me play devil's advocate - have we seen something of a genuine (*) attempt on Broon's part to invest a bit more in defence since he knew he'd got the top job no matter how hard Tony's cronies might brief against him?
Not only 2 x CVF, but a C-17 that CAS probably wasn't really expecting plus several UORs for vehicles and kit for the army; ammo for the Typhoon's gun is suddenly not a funding problem....
Add to that the fact that unlike his predecessor he appears to have been more interested in visiting the troops to see what's going on (as opposed to visiting for some "jolly good photos in the press, eh, Cherie?" the next day) and his banging on about British values (which seem rather similar to some of the values of service and duty associated with the forces and the presbyterian church) actually appears to have a little substance. I wonder if he might turn out to be rather better than we'd hoped (although after the grinning big-eared charlatan he replaced, that's not hugely difficult).
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
From: UK
That's excellent news; an extra C17 will certainly help. But this certainly shows what can be done when you have to.
Hansard - 20 Feb 07
Hansard - 20 Feb 07
Mr. Ellwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans there are (a) to order and (b) to lease additional Boeing C17 Globemaster aircraft. [119885]
Mr. Ingram [holding answer 8 February 2007]: The Department announced in August 2006 that it had signed a contract to purchase the four C-17 aircraft it currently leases from Boeing at the end of the current contract in 2008. At the same time, we also placed an order for a fifth C-17 aircraft that is expected to be delivered in 2008. Beyond this, the Department currently has no plans to order or lease additional C-17s.
Mr. Ingram [holding answer 8 February 2007]: The Department announced in August 2006 that it had signed a contract to purchase the four C-17 aircraft it currently leases from Boeing at the end of the current contract in 2008. At the same time, we also placed an order for a fifth C-17 aircraft that is expected to be delivered in 2008. Beyond this, the Department currently has no plans to order or lease additional C-17s.
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,014
Likes: 30
From: Swindonshire
The Statement in full:
Operational Effectiveness
The Secretary of State for Defence (Des Browne): I am today announcing a number of initiatives which will enhance our operational effectiveness.
The 1998 strategic defence review identified the need to have robust strategic lift capability to ensure success on operations and we subsequently leased four Boeing C-17 Globemaster aircraft. Our experience of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan has reinforced this judgment and last year we announced our intention to procure these aircraft at the end of their lease in 2008 and also to procure a fifth C-17 aircraft, which will enter service in May 2008. We now intend to purchase a sixth C-17. The aircraft, which can be delivered in 2008, will be a significant boost to the UK's strategic airlift capability and will provide greater robustness in our ability to transport troops and equipment quickly to wherever they are needed.
As part of the NATO-led international security assistance force mission in Afghanistan, we are deploying on a rotational basis with our Canadian and Dutch allies, a 2 Star (Divisional level) Headquarters in command of Regional Command (South) (RC(S)) based in Kandahar. We are also responsible for providing HQ Multi National Division (South East) in Basrah, Iraq. In order to meet these temporary demands we have decided to augment the forces’ command structure, and will temporarily establish an additional 2-Star deployable HQ. It will be based in York and will be known as HQ 6 Division, with a core of 55 Service personnel, drawn from existing structures. We will keep our planning assumption under review but currently we assess this HQ will be established until 2011. (source: Today 's Written Ministerial Statements - Hansard)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Des Browne): I am today announcing a number of initiatives which will enhance our operational effectiveness.
The 1998 strategic defence review identified the need to have robust strategic lift capability to ensure success on operations and we subsequently leased four Boeing C-17 Globemaster aircraft. Our experience of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan has reinforced this judgment and last year we announced our intention to procure these aircraft at the end of their lease in 2008 and also to procure a fifth C-17 aircraft, which will enter service in May 2008. We now intend to purchase a sixth C-17. The aircraft, which can be delivered in 2008, will be a significant boost to the UK's strategic airlift capability and will provide greater robustness in our ability to transport troops and equipment quickly to wherever they are needed.
As part of the NATO-led international security assistance force mission in Afghanistan, we are deploying on a rotational basis with our Canadian and Dutch allies, a 2 Star (Divisional level) Headquarters in command of Regional Command (South) (RC(S)) based in Kandahar. We are also responsible for providing HQ Multi National Division (South East) in Basrah, Iraq. In order to meet these temporary demands we have decided to augment the forces’ command structure, and will temporarily establish an additional 2-Star deployable HQ. It will be based in York and will be known as HQ 6 Division, with a core of 55 Service personnel, drawn from existing structures. We will keep our planning assumption under review but currently we assess this HQ will be established until 2011. (source: Today 's Written Ministerial Statements - Hansard)
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
From: UK
I wonder if he might turn out to be rather better than we'd hoped?
Joined: May 1999
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 27,399
Likes: 857
From: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Or in other words, 10 years after realising the need for strategic air lift, we've finally accepted the notion.
No !!!!, Sherlock!
And FSTA.......??
No !!!!, Sherlock!
And FSTA.......??
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
From: UK
C-17 Fleet (?)
Good news, yes, but am curious about the timing: when will Boeing cease C-17 production? Heard in the bar (this is a rumour network after all) that we were aiming to have a long term fleet of 8 C-17s (good idea), by buying one a year to 2010; but this will be a bit more of a problem if they're not building them anymore.
Does anyone (ORAC?) have latest info on the USAF / foreign orders that will determine whether the line stays open or not?
And if RAF orders would keep the line open whilst the US Congress and the USAF work out their latest cunning plan, we could presumably get a really good deal.... (and before BEagle says it, yes, presumably we could've driven a very hard bargain with Airbus for FSTA A330s in October 2001; which may even have been in service by now....)
Just curious,
S41
Does anyone (ORAC?) have latest info on the USAF / foreign orders that will determine whether the line stays open or not?
And if RAF orders would keep the line open whilst the US Congress and the USAF work out their latest cunning plan, we could presumably get a really good deal.... (and before BEagle says it, yes, presumably we could've driven a very hard bargain with Airbus for FSTA A330s in October 2001; which may even have been in service by now....)
Just curious,
S41
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,014
Likes: 30
From: Swindonshire
S41, Boeing said that the line will shut in 2009, but...
Flight contained this story on 21 June, and only two days ago, three senators sent a letter to Secretary Gates complaining about Boeing restarted the production of parts for the beast.
Senators decry restart of C-17 production - Air Force Times, 25 Jul 07
It looks as though there might be enough time to squeeze an extra two airframes out of Boeing before production ends.
Flight contained this story on 21 June, and only two days ago, three senators sent a letter to Secretary Gates complaining about Boeing restarted the production of parts for the beast.
Senators decry restart of C-17 production - Air Force Times, 25 Jul 07
It looks as though there might be enough time to squeeze an extra two airframes out of Boeing before production ends.
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 130
Likes: 33
From: The East
Splash the Cash?
THS, 'splash the cash'? Did you miss the Comprehensive Spending Review news?
A 1.8% increase next year to £34bn equates to a c6.2% decrease in real terms (if Defence inflation is assumed to be running at c8%). Superimpose upon that the early costs of the new carriers (and C17s) and there'll be no money left for anything else. I would imagine that all 3 services will each have to make c£0.5Bn savings in year. I would imagine there is plenty of debate going on now over the massive activity cuts that will be necessary to meet the savings (which, let us not forget, comes on the back of several years of savings imposed by the former Chancellor).
A 1.8% increase next year to £34bn equates to a c6.2% decrease in real terms (if Defence inflation is assumed to be running at c8%). Superimpose upon that the early costs of the new carriers (and C17s) and there'll be no money left for anything else. I would imagine that all 3 services will each have to make c£0.5Bn savings in year. I would imagine there is plenty of debate going on now over the massive activity cuts that will be necessary to meet the savings (which, let us not forget, comes on the back of several years of savings imposed by the former Chancellor).
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 312
Likes: 0
From: Australia
I presume that the intent to buy frames 5 and 6, are being dictated by the purchase at last, of the first four.
Now that they are owned by the RAF, I presume again that their use will climb now that the restrictions will be gone.
Good show
Col Tigwell
Now that they are owned by the RAF, I presume again that their use will climb now that the restrictions will be gone.
Good show
Col Tigwell
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
From: UK
Now that they are owned by the RAF, I presume again that their use will climb now that the restrictions will be gone.
Below the Glidepath - not correcting
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,886
Likes: 97
From: U.S.A.
USAF C-17's = 120
US Regular Army = 500,000
Strategic lift Support Ratio = 1:4,166
RAF C-17's = 6
UK Regular Army = 100,000
Strategic lift Support Ratio = 1:16,666
US versus UK Strategic lift Support Ratio 4:1
Before we get too weepy eyed over the largesse being shown here, assume America always has twice as much kit than is necessary, it still leaves us doing the job with half the kit, but then 12 would almost be a Squadron wouldn't it?
US Regular Army = 500,000
Strategic lift Support Ratio = 1:4,166
RAF C-17's = 6
UK Regular Army = 100,000
Strategic lift Support Ratio = 1:16,666
US versus UK Strategic lift Support Ratio 4:1
Before we get too weepy eyed over the largesse being shown here, assume America always has twice as much kit than is necessary, it still leaves us doing the job with half the kit, but then 12 would almost be a Squadron wouldn't it?
