RAAF C-17 fleet to grow
Thread Starter
RAAF C-17 fleet to grow
Looks like the RAAF will be the second biggest operator of the mighty Globemaster 111 after this:
So that's two of the four previously announced (assuming the other two will not be taken up). By my maths, that leaves four white-tails still up for grabs, unless KenV knows better.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Four are spoken for, with contracts signed and money on the table.
Four more have signed letters of intent, but no contract, and no money changing hands. Anyone an still get any of those four.
Two are totally uncommitted.
Four more have signed letters of intent, but no contract, and no money changing hands. Anyone an still get any of those four.
Two are totally uncommitted.
Yes, PM announced this morning at 36 SQN the RAAF acquiring #7 and #8.
Nothing mentioned on the further 2 options, I can't really see it...someone else will snaffle them up.
Nothing mentioned on the further 2 options, I can't really see it...someone else will snaffle them up.
NZ may be keen but having just spent a shed full of money upgrading the C130 fleet it would be doubtful if money could stretch to buy any of them
Well, we just paid $350m per aircraft... and we already have the infrastructure in place.
And you are comparing that with the cost of upgrading 1965 airframes !!??
Well, we just paid $350m per aircraft... and we already have the infrastructure in place.
And you are comparing that with the cost of upgrading 1965 airframes !!??
What I am saying BB is that we have our Herc fleet in a good way so why would we need to splash out that sort of money for something that we don't need. Aus can carry on paying out money, is there really a need for it?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Oz
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As much as I love Hercs, they no longer have much strategic relevance.
C-17s allow a country to spread its strategic influence and to back up its diplomatic efforts in the wider Pacific/Asian/Antarctic regions. They are more than a truck, they are true national assets.
C-17s allow a country to spread its strategic influence and to back up its diplomatic efforts in the wider Pacific/Asian/Antarctic regions. They are more than a truck, they are true national assets.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: God's own county
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Foxtrot Alpha 18,
I would suggest that the C-130 and C-17 compliment each other in providing strategic influence, the C-17 through reach/capacity and the C-130 in it's tactical abilities as demonstrated in disaster relief ops as an example.
The ideal solution is clearly both.
I would suggest that the C-130 and C-17 compliment each other in providing strategic influence, the C-17 through reach/capacity and the C-130 in it's tactical abilities as demonstrated in disaster relief ops as an example.
The ideal solution is clearly both.
The ideal solution is clearly both.
No Alex, F/A-18's point in this example is valid.
The C-17 has been providing strategic influence for us in Asia and the Pacific in recent years. It has taken over from what the C-130 used to provide.
To us, the C-130's tactical abilities - in its C-130J-30 form - is a primary war in-theatre transport, while C-17 has done disaster relief ops closer to home.
No Alex, F/A-18's point in this example is valid.
The C-17 has been providing strategic influence for us in Asia and the Pacific in recent years. It has taken over from what the C-130 used to provide.
To us, the C-130's tactical abilities - in its C-130J-30 form - is a primary war in-theatre transport, while C-17 has done disaster relief ops closer to home.
It'd be nice to think the RNZAF could get the last two white tails.
Personally, I'd be very surprised if they did.
Have long thought the C-17 would be ideal for a country that's so isolated - and even with upgrades the Hercs are getting very long in the tooth.
But even with a booming economy, NZ's budgeted commitment to defence is pathetic, and support of it's small but highly professional air-force is poor.
They need a lot more than NH-90s, second hand Seasprites and a few A109s.
Personally, I'd be very surprised if they did.
Have long thought the C-17 would be ideal for a country that's so isolated - and even with upgrades the Hercs are getting very long in the tooth.
But even with a booming economy, NZ's budgeted commitment to defence is pathetic, and support of it's small but highly professional air-force is poor.
They need a lot more than NH-90s, second hand Seasprites and a few A109s.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Oz
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My understanding through my knowledgeable contacts is that NZ is VERY interested in two C-17s, and that work is actively underway to make it work financially and operationally.
Who would have thought Australia would have 8 (gusting 10) C-17s a decade ago? Before that it was just a notional project sitting on a shelf somewhere. But then the Boxing Day tsunami and the Bali bombings happened, and the Hercs were caught lacking in their ability to rapidly respond to these large-scale disasters.
Since then there has been the Japanese tsunami, cyclones at home and in the Philippines and Vanuatu, MH17 recovery, not to mention ops in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the withdrawal of heavy equipment from Afghanistan.
I agree the C-17 AND the C-130 both have a place, both in strategic influence and in tactical ops, and would not be surprised to see NZ buy C-130Js or A400Ms in a decade or so...
Who would have thought Australia would have 8 (gusting 10) C-17s a decade ago? Before that it was just a notional project sitting on a shelf somewhere. But then the Boxing Day tsunami and the Bali bombings happened, and the Hercs were caught lacking in their ability to rapidly respond to these large-scale disasters.
Since then there has been the Japanese tsunami, cyclones at home and in the Philippines and Vanuatu, MH17 recovery, not to mention ops in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the withdrawal of heavy equipment from Afghanistan.
I agree the C-17 AND the C-130 both have a place, both in strategic influence and in tactical ops, and would not be surprised to see NZ buy C-130Js or A400Ms in a decade or so...
Would it be a viable option for Australia to buy the last 2 C-17s and NZ lease them or pay for them in some way.
That would save some infrastructure costs for them surely.
I probably have a naive view of politics and defence economics
That would save some infrastructure costs for them surely.
I probably have a naive view of politics and defence economics
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
My understanding through my knowledgeable contacts is that NZ is VERY interested in two C-17s
Reports: NZ considering C-17 acquisition
...well I hope you guys prove me wrong - it would be fantastic for the RNZAF if they got them - huge capability and morale boost.
Two C-17s and four A400Ms, and 40 Squadron would be sorted.
Then just wait for the first operational UCAV to stand up 75 squadron again...!
Two C-17s and four A400Ms, and 40 Squadron would be sorted.
Then just wait for the first operational UCAV to stand up 75 squadron again...!
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: God's own county
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I completely agree with the well thought out and reasoned posts. To me it is clear that for quick and reactive heavy lift, the C-17 is the natural proven platform of choice.
My concern is that for realisation of aid relief strategy, you require the assets to distribute aid once in theatre, and for that SH and C-130 aircraft are your friends.
As always the answer is you want as many as possible but the compromise is financial.
My concern is that for realisation of aid relief strategy, you require the assets to distribute aid once in theatre, and for that SH and C-130 aircraft are your friends.
As always the answer is you want as many as possible but the compromise is financial.