PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Military Aviation (https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation-57/)
-   -   RAF to get additional C-17 (https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/476644-raf-get-additional-c-17-a.html)

WE992 9th February 2012 17:55

The latest addition is great news. However it would have been ratrher more usefull when we were supporting both TELIC and HERRICK and airlift was at a premium. Perhaps we will begin to see less AN-124s in Oxforshire and then we could buy number 9 & 10.

QTRZulu 9th February 2012 19:28


Boeing (and BAE as a sub? They seem to have some play in this) seems to be building the aircraft with a modular methodology, so that you could customize the design to meet UK-unique requirements.
(No, I don't work for, and don't own stock in, Boeing.)
I think as a nation we've already been there and tried that only with slight role reversal.

That didn't work out too well for neither party although Boeing managed to walk away with what is essentially their Mission System funded by the UK taxpayer:mad:

Bastardeux 9th February 2012 20:45

Lonewolf,

I think you're point is pretty logical, it'll be interesting to see what SDSR 2015 throws up, with regard to MPA; I would assume that it would most likely be P-8s though...domestic development is right out!

BEagle 9th February 2012 21:01

Given the massive increase in strategic air transport capability which C-17 and Voyager will shortly be providing and its limited capability (technical, not professional) in the AAR role, does this announcement not sound the death knell for the TriStar? Particularly given that VC10 / VC10K availability is remarkably good at present, given the age of the aircraft.

WK622 9th February 2012 21:14

And, if the extra C-17 were to free up C130 capacity, do we still need to spend money on the 2 UOR BAe 146 QCs?

Lonewolf_50 9th February 2012 21:15

Which aircraft are you referring to, QTRZulu?

UK flies the Apache. (Flew the Phantom for a while as well)
Did something go haywire with Apache?
UK flew Seakings. (That seems to have begun as Sikorsky S-61, did it not?)
We seem to have shared in the Harrier experience, but I don't recall that being a Boeing project, but McDonald Douglass. (Do I recall incorrectly?)

Can you shed some light?

pr00ne 10th February 2012 12:16

Lonewolf_50,


I think you'll find that QTRZulu is referring to the Nimrod MRA4 which had a bespoke mission system that was provided by a Boeing led team.

cyrilranch 10th February 2012 12:22

Why is the UK C17 cost $16 millon more than the ozzy one?
 
links-
The UK is to receive another Boeing C-17 strategic transport, with the acquisition to boost the Royal Air Force's fleet of the type to eight aircraft.
Announced by prime minister David Cameron on 8 February, the £200 million ($316 million) purchase represents the potentially final addition to the UK's C-17 fleet, which plays a vital role in sustaining its "airbridge" with Afghanistan. Seven are flown by the service's 99 Sqn from its air transport super base at RAF Brize Norton, Oxfordshire.
http://www.flightglobal.c...h-c-17-transport-367960/

The US Defense Security Cooperation Agency has notified congress of the possible sale of a sixth Boeing C-17 Globemaster III aircraft to Australia for $300 million.
Canberra has requested the aircraft, up to four Pratt & Whitney F117-PW-100 engines and a Northrop Grumman An/AAQ-24V (13) large aircraft infrared counter-measures (LAIRCM) system, the DSCA said. In addition, the deal will include spare parts, training, documentation and test equipment.
http://www.flightglobal.c...quire-sixth-c-17-365095/

are we getting ripped off ?:hmm:

Milo Minderbinder 10th February 2012 12:33

are we getting ripped off???


Lets see now...... who's involved,....... MOD, Boeing, yep thats an affirmative then

Seldomfitforpurpose 10th February 2012 12:34


Originally Posted by cyrilranch (Post 7015784)
are we getting ripped off ?:hmm:

If we are not it will be more by luck than judgment for sure :ugh:

back end o' the bus 11th February 2012 09:36

36 (Maintenance) Sqn.....
 
Don't really matter how many C-17's the RAAF have, maintenance run the Sqn and will always ensure a full fleet will never be possible, whilst ensuring all tasking revolves around maintenance crew duty!!! :D:ugh::ok: oh how the tail wags the RAAF dog.....woof....woof

force_ale 11th February 2012 10:29

As an ex RAF techie I'm sure you are aware that the RAF does not have ground crew duty. Instead we have accidents, near misses and boards of inquiry.:ugh:

StopStart 11th February 2012 11:21

And airfields full of unserviceable aircraft :hmm:

Jollygreengiant64 11th February 2012 12:11

The C-17 won against the AN-124 back at the start, did it not? What would have happened if the RAF went down the other route for Strategic Airlift requirements? Is the 124 a better way to spend the funds?

Harley Quinn 11th February 2012 12:26


As an ex RAF techie I'm sure you are aware that the RAF does not have ground crew duty. Instead we have accidents, near misses and boards of inquiry.:ugh:

And airfields full of unserviceable aircraft http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/sr...lies/yeees.gif
I think I know what you mean, but your intent is less than clear. Could you put it in English for those of us who are hard of thinking?

Ta

Roadster280 11th February 2012 13:45

Seems clear enough to me, and I was a pongo...

fallmonk 11th February 2012 16:34

Is the "extra" $16m maybe to compensate the USAF?? (if it's one of there slots)
Due to the fact is reportedly due very soon ?


All times are GMT. The time now is 22:59.


Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.