Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

5th C-17 for RAAF

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

5th C-17 for RAAF

Old 3rd Mar 2011, 05:10
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NSW
Posts: 43
5th C-17 for RAAF

Announced that RAAF will get a 5th C-17 in lieu of two more C-130J's.
TBM-Legend is online now  
Old 3rd Mar 2011, 05:39
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,541
Deal is not certain... the decision is pending the answers received to the request they sent to the US about pricing & production slot availability.
GreenKnight121 is offline  
Old 3rd Mar 2011, 05:44
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 881
Not certain but unlikely not to go ahead as the Minister of Defence announced it personally and on TV as well.
OurLabor Party polis are sensitive to loosing face as the opposition is right up them at the drop of a hat.
That being said, the current minister sems to be competent, although I have not heard any opinions from serving members about how he is perceived.
John
rjtjrt is online now  
Old 3rd Mar 2011, 06:00
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 56
Posts: 4,241
Maybe the Gov't has learnt that buying "off the shelf" does have some benefits.

Question for those more in the know.

I understand the need for the C-17 but how needed are the C-130's in the longer term scheme of things ?

Will we end up with too much large, long term strategic capacity and too little
C-130 tactical capacity and landing options ?

.
500N is offline  
Old 3rd Mar 2011, 06:38
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sydney, AU
Posts: 117
I understand the need for the C-17 but how needed are the C-130's in the longer term scheme of things ?

Will we end up with too much large, long term strategic capacity and too little
C-130 tactical capacity and landing options ?
I can't see them getting any more than an additional 5th or 6th C-17s (A330s also provides a lot of lift). So plenty of room for something smaller.

The Caribou replacement plans calls for something like a C-27j (ie. 10t cargo). There might also be plans for more Army Chinooks.
0497 is offline  
Old 3rd Mar 2011, 07:00
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Canberra
Posts: 382
The two C-130J's were to partly replace the lift lost when the 'Bous were retired.

The additional C17 has been on the cards for awhile. Part of the reason given is disaster relief in country and our area of ops. Apart from others far away they are the largest lift asset able to assist in time of dire need.

Other than that if you've got half a Billion in unspent funds that will be taken back into central coffers why not spend half on a new airlifter?
Flyingblind is offline  
Old 3rd Mar 2011, 07:51
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 312
Blind billy could see that we were going to run into the same problems that the RAF had with flying hours. Many of us ex logistic flyers had been pushing for this move.

As the hours go up and the C17 have done more hours than was intended there is a real chance that on occasions you will have two not one as planned out of service.

The RAAF is finding that the hours on their J models are climbing as is the fatique factor on both the centre section and the mainplanes. The new engines have also created problems in that area and this I suspect is why the latest J models have a longer life centre section.

The RAAF C130 fleet since 1958 have flown over a 1M hours with no loss of life and only one small accident when the nose wheel failed in an A model in the sixties.

Both the C17 and the C130 along with the Boo have served us well but the C130's like our British friends are heading for either major work or replacement.

As the proposed purchase of two more C130's would have created logistic problems as they would have been latter block numbers.

We are down to only 8 H models being in service.

Regards

Col
herkman is offline  
Old 3rd Mar 2011, 07:55
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 312
Some of our long haul problems would go away if we put cargo floors in the refuelers.

Believe it was killed on cost basis but Airbus are building the A330 with cargo floors.

Regards

Col
herkman is offline  
Old 3rd Mar 2011, 09:50
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Australia
Age: 61
Posts: 55
I think you will find a production slot has already been allocated.
It is my understanding this matter was being discussed in Long Beach 12 months ago.
There was a Long Beach sourced story in Aviation Week mid last year talking about the 5th RAAF C-17 and a separate joint purchase with the K1W1's.
I would think the cost of the Christchurch earthquake has probably scuppered that deal although RAAF C-17s have been very busy flying people and material across the Tasman.
Trackmaster is offline  
Old 3rd Mar 2011, 13:51
  #10 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NSW
Posts: 43
indeed. This deal was done some time ago. Smith was only pretending to hedge. Cost for #5 is simply the aircraft this time....

* Also RAN has been allocated delivery slots for MH-60R. The changeover from S70B's will be like introducing the Super Bugs. The aircraft need a minimal conversion, basic GSE in place already, Sim gets upgraded and then replaced, maintainers do a differences course. Fits on all 'boats' too without any mods.
TBM-Legend is online now  
Old 4th Mar 2011, 23:58
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Antipodea
Posts: 22
I believe the H Herc's are now down to 7 frames and the last one has come out of DLM. Happy to be corrected, the guys at the coalface don't get told anything by ALG. ACAUST apparently told guys at SAW about H extension to 2016 and there's rumours abound that QDS and Marshall have been asked to quote on this. If they don't keep the maintenance schedule though for DLM's it will probably be a moot point and Jul 2013 retirement will look pretty solid at which point the J's will fatigue out even quicker.

5th C17 should help their fleet out with maintenance and availability.

There was also an accident/incident? in 2008. C130H doing tacex had a nose gear scissor join snap after T+G on dirt strip in west NSW. Crew did fantastically (and were recognised for this) to get it on the ground without crashing.
Lost Again.. is offline  
Old 5th Mar 2011, 02:49
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Great Southern Land
Age: 54
Posts: 435
Over the 2005 - 2006 period 1 AUD bought on average 0.75 USD; now AUD USD parity. Wonder how this will affect the cost of the 5th C-17?

I think the original program cost US$780m ie no change from A$1b at the time.

But that's all by-the-by .... reckon we'll get to do LAPES with 'em?
Like This - Do That is offline  
Old 5th Mar 2011, 03:35
  #13 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NSW
Posts: 43
what about another and make it six?
TBM-Legend is online now  
Old 5th Mar 2011, 07:26
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Canberra
Posts: 382
LAPES would be fun but not likely to happen to Australian frames, AMTDU may trial a few loads just to prove we can do it.

C17 is a strategic asset, let the C27J's do LAPES when we get them.
Flyingblind is offline  
Old 5th Mar 2011, 07:42
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wingham NSW Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 1,345
How needed are C130's longterm?

500N poses the question "How needed are the C130's longterm"? Given that the RAAF has been operating C130's since late 1958 the type have certainly etched their place in our Air Force history. I cannot comment on the C130J (they don't have a seat for a Flight Engineer), however having operated the A-E-H variants I am sure that the C130 will be on the RAAF inventory long after I'm a mere memory. In fact, former C130A A97-212 is still in operation, the sole Aeroproducts equipped C130A still flying. It is now N131EC and owned by Earl Cherry. As mentioned, the only two major failures in 53 years of RAAF operations have been two instances of NLG strut failure. One on an A model in Medang around 1974 where the axle fractured and broke away from the bottom of the strut and one on a H model a couple of years back which was of a similar nature as I understand it. Long live the Lockheed Legend.

If it ain't Boeing I'm not goin' (unless its a Lockheed)
Old Fella is offline  
Old 5th Mar 2011, 08:06
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Great Southern Land
Age: 54
Posts: 435
let the C27J's do LAPES when we get them.
I'm counting the days, the months, the years ... hopefully not the decades

That particular capability gap is a great wide gulf. AIR 8000 Ph 2 just doesn't seem to excite Ronnie as much as I think it should .... I hope ALG is whispering in the Govt's ear this weekend down at Avalon: "buy Spartans ... buy Spartans ... buy Spartans"
Like This - Do That is offline  
Old 5th Mar 2011, 09:20
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: so far south of blighty its untrue!!!!!
Posts: 36
Interesting!!!!

So!! currently the 4 frames we have are NOT being fully utilised (fact-even with flood/cyclone/NZ assists), so we get a fifth, then we eventually pull out of Afghan, resulting in even more of a C-17 static display team!! At least there would be one advantage..it would give the engineers another aircraft to practice on.....and god knows they need the practice... on a darker side it gives them another chance of creating a large smoking hole in the ground.
There is hardly any maintainance support after midnight and NONE at weekends...
But hey at least they have more restrictive crew duty than the actual crew that fly it! and any route revolves around them...
The Sqn is run by engineers so maybe the desicion should be run past them first, then the rest of the Sqn and Air Force could fall inline...
Apologies, a bit of a rant, but true... honest indian....
Should we not put the surplus funds into valuable training that most of the Air Force critically needs!!
back end o' the bus is offline  
Old 5th Mar 2011, 09:50
  #18 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NSW
Posts: 43
don't worry after A/Stan [if there is an after] there will some other place where the action is.

Australia nearly bought C-141's moons ago for the strategic airlift but we kept rattling around on 12 hour jaunts in C-130's instead. The mix of the Herc and Starlifter would have been great. At least the Govt has come to its senses and realised the size of our country and region.

All new aircraft fall under the spell of the ginger beers but the novelty wears off...
TBM-Legend is online now  
Old 5th Mar 2011, 10:13
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: so far south of blighty its untrue!!!!!
Posts: 36
Can't agree!!

Whilst the engineers have a WGCDR in ALSPO that can dictate to the SQN the ADF WILL BE RUN BY ENGINEERS....Tail wagging dog syndrome in extremis!!!
No worries we're not exactly a global defence force are we!!!!!!!!!
back end o' the bus is offline  
Old 5th Mar 2011, 10:21
  #20 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NSW
Posts: 43
The F-111's went back and forth a few times between the squadrons and the MU...

"yes you may have an aircraft for a mission if you ask nicely and never change the schedule was often said"
TBM-Legend is online now  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.