C-17 Hours
Thread Starter
C-17 Hours
According to Jane’s Defence Weekly the RAF has exceeded its contracted annual hours on the C-17 by 60%, resulting in additional support costs of £4 million. No doubt there will be other penalty clauses yet to emerge. If we'd bought them in the first place.................
Another triumph of penny-pinching, bureaucratic short sightedness over common sense?
Another triumph of penny-pinching, bureaucratic short sightedness over common sense?
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Mostly here, but often there
Posts: 542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Or perhaps a totally unforeseen attack on a NATO ally requiring the immediate and short-notice deployment of our assets, utilising (for once) the best platform for the job. You could be right, of course, but this is just my humble viewpoint.......
BBD,
You may be right. BUT....
On this very Bulletin Board we predicted that this (exceeding the paltry number of hours allowed) would happen long before 11/9/2001, and pointed to the excessive cost of the lease solution. There were hours of happy banter from the chap who likes Antonovs (can't remember his handle) BEagle et al.
All down to September 11th, or a badly negotiated and short-sighted lease, when outright purchase was what was needed? I know which I think.....
You may be right. BUT....
On this very Bulletin Board we predicted that this (exceeding the paltry number of hours allowed) would happen long before 11/9/2001, and pointed to the excessive cost of the lease solution. There were hours of happy banter from the chap who likes Antonovs (can't remember his handle) BEagle et al.
All down to September 11th, or a badly negotiated and short-sighted lease, when outright purchase was what was needed? I know which I think.....
That would be tovarich Lybid - of Air Foyle!
Now we have our C-17 fleet, there are still An 124s visiting the Secret Oxfordshire Airbase on occasion. So for really outsize loads, there is obviously still the odd requirement for the Ruslan now and again, despite the obvious capability of the C-17.
Then there's the A400M issue. Potentially an excellent aircraft with good export potential - but when will it fly?
Now we have our C-17 fleet, there are still An 124s visiting the Secret Oxfordshire Airbase on occasion. So for really outsize loads, there is obviously still the odd requirement for the Ruslan now and again, despite the obvious capability of the C-17.
Then there's the A400M issue. Potentially an excellent aircraft with good export potential - but when will it fly?
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: No fixed abode
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You may have a point Beagle - the A400M may have potential. But who will fly it, from where, when, with how many, carrying what, at what altitude and is the fg trg system geared to provide the crews. All unanswered q's that need urgent attention. But my money is on the C17 - cos it works, its right here, right now and because OBL won't wait for AMC to deliver a dream but El Tone wants to play with Uncle Sam.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is the team that you gave you The Dome, The Passport Office Computers, Privatised ATC, expensive wallpaper etc. What could possible make you think that it would be on budget or value for money when we got it!
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do wonder if the term Outsize Cargo is a little over size. Much of what I see going into these 124's is gen cargo - and lots of it. Perhaps we could put the 124 into the BLA bracket - Bulk loading Aircraft.
Just a question, but how many armoured Mini's can you get into an An124 with the stub loading deck fitted? I only ask, having just been offered the Kabul BMW franchise!
Just a question, but how many armoured Mini's can you get into an An124 with the stub loading deck fitted? I only ask, having just been offered the Kabul BMW franchise!
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Pantsville
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Over the past year there has been a lot of duff information/rumour spread about the C-17 , but the fact is (imho) that this has been the most succesful introduction of a new aircraft type into the RAF for many years, if not ever.
Does anybody DIRECTLY conected with the C-17, be they aircrew, movers, techies or indeed end-users have any negative comments about it, other than why didn't we buy/ get more, etc?
Does anybody DIRECTLY conected with the C-17, be they aircrew, movers, techies or indeed end-users have any negative comments about it, other than why didn't we buy/ get more, etc?
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Booty:
I'm not connected with the aircraft in any way, but the one piece of criticism I have had from a loady is that the UK is not able to do tactical operations under the terms of its lease agreement. Seems he'd had great fun doing low-level work while training with the USAF guys at Charleston!
Moose
I'm not connected with the aircraft in any way, but the one piece of criticism I have had from a loady is that the UK is not able to do tactical operations under the terms of its lease agreement. Seems he'd had great fun doing low-level work while training with the USAF guys at Charleston!
Moose
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A new aircraft type bootscooter?
I have to say that we acted very sensibly, given that the aircraft were leased, to train and operate in an almost identical fashion to the USAF. However, should we not have expected a reasonably easy entry into service with a tried and tested airframe, mature SOPs and a proven training system?
However I noticed that the ‘Entry into service of the C-17’ received a special mention in a list of HQ 2 Gp's annual objectives (No 7 I think). I’m glad to see that this sort of high profile, pro-active approach has worked so well.
I have to say that we acted very sensibly, given that the aircraft were leased, to train and operate in an almost identical fashion to the USAF. However, should we not have expected a reasonably easy entry into service with a tried and tested airframe, mature SOPs and a proven training system?
However I noticed that the ‘Entry into service of the C-17’ received a special mention in a list of HQ 2 Gp's annual objectives (No 7 I think). I’m glad to see that this sort of high profile, pro-active approach has worked so well.
Last edited by RoboAlbert; 12th Jul 2002 at 12:26.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Low-level tactical flying?! That might get the paint dirty! They couldn't be sold as new for an as new price when the lease is up then. Unless of course the future buyer was so desperate for heavy lift aircraft because the aircraft it had all its hopes on never left the drawing board.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: States sometimes
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The introduction into service of C-17’s was described by a USAF friend of mine as a ‘complete nightmare.’ I also have it on good authority that the C-17’s are still not out of the woods. Without going into any specifics, certain tactical disciplines are still causing major problems so it has been in no way an overnight success story. My point is this… does anyone out there actually believe the RAF clap trap about a successful intro into service?? The RAF inherited a capable aeroplane, all the donkey work, development, tials etc. was done by the USAF. Also, if QinetiQ had been allowed to get their hands on it then it probably would have been a totally different story.
