Possible 9th C-17 for the RAF?
 

UK Shows Interest in Buying Another C-17 | Defense News | defensenews.com

-RP

Why not make it a round dozen, I'm sure the Air Force would have enough use for them.

I'm assuming ordering them in batches like this has actually cost the British Taxpayer more than if we had ordered a dozen in the first place?

AT has been at a premium for the last couple of decades but I think with our current fleet of C17 and the A400Ms (nearly here at last) and the pax capacity offered by Voyager we will actually be pretty flush once HERRICK is over. Chinook numbers are quite healthy, too. To my mind the priorities should be buying more F-35 and/or recovering the MPA capability. Our leadership gives too much weight to inclusive talk of supporting roles - we light blue, of all people, should be espousing the independent capabilities of air power!

Forget the extra C-17. We do 'support' pretty well with what we've got; time to give a bit more focus on independent 'delivery'. The future is less HERRICK and more ELLAMY. Just my humble opinion!

"Buying another C17" - thought they were all on lease ?

not been on lease for years.

and As to ELLAMY, plenty of involvement i believe... according to the MOD website:

RAF - RAF Delivers Support

The Syrian response has shown that the electorate have no appetite for the UK Mil to jump into any future conflict without very good reason. Once we are consolodated back home, there may not be a demand for an overborn AT fleet.

Exercising around the world will keep things ticking over but a new era dawns in 2015, and things are bound to change. I understand (from the Defence Minister) that there is an appetite to have a MPA on line before 2020 with proposals as to how and what by 2015. 2020 is also the target year for the future air force across the board. Lets hope that there is no 'Rolex' on this one for they will have had long enough to make and impliment decisions. The purchase of another C17 now is probably the result of some cunning staffwork riding on the demise of VC10 and TriStar whilst they could. Timing is everything.

Sorry... only 10 registrations are in the block reserved for C-17s.

UK Electorate?
 

I think that should the UK 'Elected'.

You might like to think so, but you would be wrong. :sad:

Nope, only first 4 were on lease and they have since been bought out. The remainder have all been bought outright. Not sure where we stand with the crews, groundcrew and spares packages though.

Once we've pulled out of the 'stan there simply won't be enough freight for the current C17s to move let alone an extra one. Discussions I've had have indicated that they're trying to generate a tac role for the ac as there won't be enough of a job left for them & because they anticipate the A400M taking an inordinate length of time before it's capable of anything substantial.

The original plan was for a fleet of A400M & C130J which would have handled pretty much everything we needed to move with the C17s leased for the duration of Herrick & Telic. Now we're stuck with a fleet of oversized jets that will be too expensive to move freight for exercises - the army won't want to pay the costs involved so will move their equipment by cheaper means - and we're scrapping our only Tac & SF capable ac.

Even if the C17 gets the necessary clearances are we really going to insert a small SF team in a monster of an ac that costs circa £50k an hour to operate?

What planet are you guys on? Have you seen the monthly bill for chartered freight?

Post Herrick there will be plenty of tasking for the entire AT fleet as the reliance on civil charter reduces. The development of future roles for the C-17 is very much at the customer (in this case the Army) request.

ST: why would the use of civil charter have to reduce? If the customer (in this case the army) doesn't want to pay the high cost of using a C17 why shouldn't they move their freight that way? Are they going to be forced to use a C17 at 3 to 4 times the cost just because it's there?

Civil charter is vastly more expensive than the circa £43k per hour cost of a C-17.

Incidentally the J model is currently slated to retire around 2020 leaving the A400m and the C-17 to provide tactical insertion. Bearing in mind that in theory the C-17 can delivery twice the payload of the A400 (18 vs 9 pallet spaces)

"...Civil charter is vastly more expensive than the circa £43k per hour cost of a C-17....."

Surely that depends on a host of variables?


For example, I would presume (big mistake?) that flying an almost empty C-17 from UK to Cyprus (say 5 hours at £43k - call it £200k, although if it came back empty would that be £400k overall?) with a small cargo would be vastly more expensive than using a commercial carrier who is taking your load as merely part of a bigger cargo they are already committed to for other clients.

Conversely, charting an entire civil aircraft just for an MOD task might well be more expensive than the cost of using a C-17.

No doubt there is a very wide spectrum of circumstances between those two extremes?

Ken

That's not quite true. The C130J was procured as the Hercules Rolling Replacement Tranche One; the intention was for it to be replaced by A400m as this was seen as the "final solution". As the C130J couldn't fill the "heavy" requirement, a competition was held to find a lease solution for Hercules Rolling Replacement Tranche Two, which became a fight between the An-124 and the C17. Eventually a lease of four C17s was agreed, but the advent of Telic and then Herrick rapidly made their purchase, and more besides, a "no brainer".

So as the "Rolling Replacement" has now become permanent, in my mind, the real question now is, "do we need A400m at all"? :E

LFFC: A400M was bought to replace the C130K, not the J, & was to be operated alongside it. Replacing the J with the A400M was effectively a reduction of 25 airframes in the AT fleet, with the money for the replacement C130J to make up for the one lost in Iraq being spent on a C17 (well, a bit of one anyone, probably a nosewheel or flap).

Ken

Not sure where you get your figures from, nor how accurate they are, but I'm guessing the figure you are using is the "full cost" figure rather than the "marginal cost". I think you are comparing apples with submarines. Full costs include the crew's pay, the groundcrew's pay, an element of spares, a proportion of the cost of running Brize etc etc. The crew get paid whether they fly or not, as do the groundcrew, as do the overheads of running Brize. The problem with these figures is, if you charge full cost you rapidly price yourself out if the market. And the Army don't actually get "charged" full cost; they might be billed marginal costs and that's likely to be less than the cost of charter; for which the current bill is horrendous. As for more capacity than we know what to do with post Afghanistan, I'm not sure who you've been discussing this with, but I respectfully suggest they don't know what they're talking about.

I thought the J was slated to fly until at least 2030...Marshall Aerospace have been contacted to support them until then!

First Mk 5s to be withdrawn from 2015, all gone by 2022 is the current plan but for that to happen there needs to be an ac capable of taking on its roles....