C-17 or A400M for Australia?
- Thread starter cherry
- Start date
An tough one, 4 C-17s provide a capability but how much of one?
8 A400Ms can not lift an M1 but can lift all helo's (with the exception of the Chinook?) and will allow for greater flexibility with the greater numbers.
The problem I see, and this is the same for the RAF, is that the C-130J, while a good aircraft is an aircraft out of its time, good troop lift tactical ability but does not suport a defence force with a strategic focus and a medium to heavy mobility.
I would like to see a mix of C-17s (4-5) and A400Ms (9-12). Wishfull thinking I know, but there it is.
Fast Cats and Trimarans should also come into the picture for moving equipment from Australia.
8 A400Ms can not lift an M1 but can lift all helo's (with the exception of the Chinook?) and will allow for greater flexibility with the greater numbers.
The problem I see, and this is the same for the RAF, is that the C-130J, while a good aircraft is an aircraft out of its time, good troop lift tactical ability but does not suport a defence force with a strategic focus and a medium to heavy mobility.
I would like to see a mix of C-17s (4-5) and A400Ms (9-12). Wishfull thinking I know, but there it is.
Fast Cats and Trimarans should also come into the picture for moving equipment from Australia.
Well, here we are again A-400M or C-17. If the critical criteria is to lift the M-1 MBT well there is not point in our discussion, saying that, you can count on one hand the number of nations that have transports that can lift there MBT's.
The A-400M will get able to be bought in larger numbers and they will need that since they RAAF will be buying so few. Its also has an organic tanker ability to help exspand upon the 5 A330 MRTT's. Moreover, you can argue that with the A-330's being able to lift 43 tons of cargo while operating as a 3 point tanker, then buying the largest most capable plane (but fewer of them) may not be now so important, becuase you do have the ability to "shift" cargo.
In the world of experdishonary warfare, ligth and meduim vehicals need to be lifted, not your armoured battalions.
Saying that with boeing C-17 lines facing closure maybe boeing will cut them (RAAF) a deal ? but that order better be "darn" soon.
My view, the RAAF will be better served with larger number of A-400M that can move all but 2 items (M-1 & chinook) in the austrailian armed forces.
Anything from our australian cousins ? :xmas
The A-400M will get able to be bought in larger numbers and they will need that since they RAAF will be buying so few. Its also has an organic tanker ability to help exspand upon the 5 A330 MRTT's. Moreover, you can argue that with the A-330's being able to lift 43 tons of cargo while operating as a 3 point tanker, then buying the largest most capable plane (but fewer of them) may not be now so important, becuase you do have the ability to "shift" cargo.
In the world of experdishonary warfare, ligth and meduim vehicals need to be lifted, not your armoured battalions.
Saying that with boeing C-17 lines facing closure maybe boeing will cut them (RAAF) a deal ? but that order better be "darn" soon.
My view, the RAAF will be better served with larger number of A-400M that can move all but 2 items (M-1 & chinook) in the austrailian armed forces.
Anything from our australian cousins ? :xmas
A couple of things. C-17s seem to be extremely expensive. That is my main quibble with that aircraft. We could only afford a few, like about 4 as mentioned previously. Would that be enough to be useful, given the expense?
The A400 currently isn't in production and could very well turn out to be an expensive aircraft as well (for what it does).
So just to stir the pot, what about The Il-76?
http://www.bmrexpress.com/IL76.htm
Currently in production, and I'm guessing that it would also be cheaper than the A400. It seems to be able to more than match the load carrying capacity of an A400 (47 vs 37 tonnes).
Surely the ADF would be able to negotiate a contract with the Russians that wouldn't leave them exposed to spare parts availability issues?
Lastly, a third option would also be a good bargaining chip when trying to negotiate a price for either the C-17 or A400. It's amazing how much a little competition can help get the yanks to negotiate. When Howard mandated tha aegis system for the AWDs, the yanks didn't have to negotiate. That turned around and us on the arse by all accounts.
cheers
rb
The A400 currently isn't in production and could very well turn out to be an expensive aircraft as well (for what it does).
So just to stir the pot, what about The Il-76?
http://www.bmrexpress.com/IL76.htm
Currently in production, and I'm guessing that it would also be cheaper than the A400. It seems to be able to more than match the load carrying capacity of an A400 (47 vs 37 tonnes).
Surely the ADF would be able to negotiate a contract with the Russians that wouldn't leave them exposed to spare parts availability issues?
Lastly, a third option would also be a good bargaining chip when trying to negotiate a price for either the C-17 or A400. It's amazing how much a little competition can help get the yanks to negotiate. When Howard mandated tha aegis system for the AWDs, the yanks didn't have to negotiate. That turned around and us on the arse by all accounts.
cheers
rb
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Another problem is that our 12x C-130H's are rapidly running out of life. They make up half our C-130 force, and will require an extremely extensive (and expensive) upgrade to continue operating within less than 5 years. This upgrade was expected to cost in excess of $1 billion.
Proposals have included: continuing with the upgrade AND purchasing C-17's, (probably 4 in total), canning the C-130 upgrade and purchasing a fleet of 8-12 A400M's to cover the C-130's, or purchasing A400M AND C-17's. Now also the light tactical airlift program will be proceeding. This program is to replace 14 Caribou's with a similar number of aircraft. (The C-27 Spartan having previously been chosen prior to the program being deferred).
The problems with these programs is which ever program is chosen, it still leaves Australia operating small numbers of numerous variety's of airlifters (up to 5 aircraft performing similar roles). I think the Government should bite the bullet and buy a light airlifter, a medium airlifter and a heavy airlifter. My personal perference would be :- 14x C-27's for the light airlifter. 24x A400M airlifters as the medium airlifter and 4x C-17's for the Heavy lift function.
Obviously this is going to be an expensive option, but would be offset somewhat by the sale of our relatively new 12x C-130J-30's.
In any case I hope C-17's are acquired. Nearly all of our recent deployments (dating back to Iraq in 2003) have been because of USAF C-17 availability. Our recent deployment of helo's and medical support to Pakistan was delayed because of un-availability of C-17's and privately charted Illushyin aircraft. C-17's are the only aircraft (besides it's Russian equivalents) that enable outsized loads to be deployed into short or rough fields, whilst performing "tac" flying to protect the aircraft and it's load.
As to the minimal numbers, Britain only operates 4 C-17's, and these have been the backbone of all of their recent deployments (particularly to Afghanistan) and they've got great service out of them. Irrespective of whic aircraft we buy, medium airlifters ARE going to remain the mainstay of our airlift capabilities.
To gain any real additional capability, I reckon we have to purchase C-17's. A400M's as good as they will probably be, can't match them for outright capability...
And Senator Hill and John Howard seem really excited about the C-17. If they really want it, the ADF's going to get it...
Proposals have included: continuing with the upgrade AND purchasing C-17's, (probably 4 in total), canning the C-130 upgrade and purchasing a fleet of 8-12 A400M's to cover the C-130's, or purchasing A400M AND C-17's. Now also the light tactical airlift program will be proceeding. This program is to replace 14 Caribou's with a similar number of aircraft. (The C-27 Spartan having previously been chosen prior to the program being deferred).
The problems with these programs is which ever program is chosen, it still leaves Australia operating small numbers of numerous variety's of airlifters (up to 5 aircraft performing similar roles). I think the Government should bite the bullet and buy a light airlifter, a medium airlifter and a heavy airlifter. My personal perference would be :- 14x C-27's for the light airlifter. 24x A400M airlifters as the medium airlifter and 4x C-17's for the Heavy lift function.
Obviously this is going to be an expensive option, but would be offset somewhat by the sale of our relatively new 12x C-130J-30's.
In any case I hope C-17's are acquired. Nearly all of our recent deployments (dating back to Iraq in 2003) have been because of USAF C-17 availability. Our recent deployment of helo's and medical support to Pakistan was delayed because of un-availability of C-17's and privately charted Illushyin aircraft. C-17's are the only aircraft (besides it's Russian equivalents) that enable outsized loads to be deployed into short or rough fields, whilst performing "tac" flying to protect the aircraft and it's load.
As to the minimal numbers, Britain only operates 4 C-17's, and these have been the backbone of all of their recent deployments (particularly to Afghanistan) and they've got great service out of them. Irrespective of whic aircraft we buy, medium airlifters ARE going to remain the mainstay of our airlift capabilities.
To gain any real additional capability, I reckon we have to purchase C-17's. A400M's as good as they will probably be, can't match them for outright capability...
And Senator Hill and John Howard seem really excited about the C-17. If they really want it, the ADF's going to get it...
Here some numbers to help everyone out
Airbus A400 maximum life capacity 74,000lbs
Ilyushin Il-76MD 103,615lbs
Boeing C-17A 169,000lbs
The weight of a M1A2 Abraham 138,789.2 lbs
I hope this figures help everyone understand the situation better.
Info from Jane's Aircraft Recognition Guide, and Jane's Tanks and Combat Vechiles Recognition Guide. EADS A400 webpage: http://www.eads.net/frame/lang/en/1024/xml/content/OF00000000400004/6/03/31000036.html
Airbus A400 maximum life capacity 74,000lbs
Ilyushin Il-76MD 103,615lbs
Boeing C-17A 169,000lbs
The weight of a M1A2 Abraham 138,789.2 lbs
I hope this figures help everyone understand the situation better.
Info from Jane's Aircraft Recognition Guide, and Jane's Tanks and Combat Vechiles Recognition Guide. EADS A400 webpage: http://www.eads.net/frame/lang/en/1024/xml/content/OF00000000400004/6/03/31000036.html
from a quick and dirty google I have found some costs
unit cost USD (million)
A400 year 2000 $80-90 year 2004 ~ $110
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2000/Dec/European_Cargo.htm
IL-76 year 2003 $35 http://www.ainonline.com/Publications/paris/paris_03/pd1russiapg48.html
C-17 year 2004 $333 http://www.globemaster.de/c-17/
cheers
rb
unit cost USD (million)
A400 year 2000 $80-90 year 2004 ~ $110
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2000/Dec/European_Cargo.htm
IL-76 year 2003 $35 http://www.ainonline.com/Publications/paris/paris_03/pd1russiapg48.html
C-17 year 2004 $333 http://www.globemaster.de/c-17/
cheers
rb
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
I think people are missing the point about C-17's being able to carry Abrams. Yes technically they can do it, and very few others can, however they won't be used for that. It would take the entire fleet 5 trips to deploy a single squadron with no logistical support whatsoever... Our Abrams will be moved by the Navy.
What C-17's WOULD do is allow us to deploy ourselves to places like Afghanistan and Iraq instead of having to pay the USAF or RAF todo it for us. The things we deploy now, troops, light armoured vehicles, light vehicles, helo's and support for these things are what will be airlifted by our C-17's, just more each time, a lot further...
What C-17's WOULD do is allow us to deploy ourselves to places like Afghanistan and Iraq instead of having to pay the USAF or RAF todo it for us. The things we deploy now, troops, light armoured vehicles, light vehicles, helo's and support for these things are what will be airlifted by our C-17's, just more each time, a lot further...
seantheaussie
New Member
If France, Germany, Italy, Canada, Japan, Spain, Holland & SKorea don't need C-17 class lifters neither does Australia. Use A400 tankers & MRTT for strat lift OR hire Sov lifters OR US/UK can lift us OR we don't go.There isn't a capability I would sacrifice to pay for C-17 which to me is a large hint.
I agree, the intention is obviously not deploy armour, but to be able to deploy larger, light role formations faster over longer distances and in less sorties. I do think that if we are going to replace our 12 C-130H's with these inter theatre heavy lifters, we should probably also look at 6-12 intra theatre transports in the C-27/CN-295 Class to cover the gap in tactical lift that the removal of 12 C-130's would create.Aussie Digger said:
If I was looking at this from a non-cost perspective then I would say
10-12 Ospreys
10-12 A400Ms
4-6 C-17s
That would cost 3-4 billion $US, but the flexability and lift would double what you have today with fewer airframes.
10-12 Ospreys
10-12 A400Ms
4-6 C-17s
That would cost 3-4 billion $US, but the flexability and lift would double what you have today with fewer airframes.
Why is the use of Russian transports unrealistic?Dr Phobus said:C-17 is cost prohibative for the RAAF, A400-M is the best option, the suggestion of russian transports again is unlreaistic. Moreiver, the RAAF have the organic tanker ability to support long range depolyment.
What is it, ideological- political, logistical?
As I understand it, the Russians can be very controlling. Buying their hardware has previously meant allowing 'military advisors' to work in your country etc. (I think those days went with the Berlin wall.)
Spare parts can suddenly dry up if they want something...
However I think the Il-76 is quite a good aircraft. It is a 'mature' design. The Russians have about a hunderd of them, China has just ordered ~30 or so. The latest model has uprated engines, which are also more fuel efficient. It can carry more than the A400. I have no idea what they are like maintainance wise.
cheers
rb
The problem with Russian equipment is logistics, reliability and support.rossfrb_1 said:
The idea was raised a few years ago now to 'westernise' the IL-76, not sure how much work went into it tho.
No western Air force will go Russian without a major commitment from other western nations. And that is unlikely to happen as Europe and the US will require the aircraft to be built locally, which will only drive the price up.
There was an idea put forward 4 or five years ago to create a NATO heavy lift force similar to the AWACS force. Each NATO member would put in money to raise and maintain it. E.g. 20-24 C-17s for use by NATO members for NATO missions and exercises. Similar thought was a European heavy lift force.
The problem, I think, is that a minimum C-17 buy for Strategic lift in a operational sense is 8+, this is a East Timor type operation, or intervention from say another Coup in Fiji and that means US$2b to begin with!
Its unrealistic because the russian's are really no ally of australia. Moreover, IL-76 tend not to age so well (shorter frame and engine life) and you can argue the avonic fit will be infearior and if they put western avionics in it, then up goes the price.
The western planes are of overall better quality and there's no danger of US/Eu saying NO to parts and services and upgrades !!
Yes, IL-76 is a mature and capable desing and yes has overall good performace and a reasonable price.
:fly
The western planes are of overall better quality and there's no danger of US/Eu saying NO to parts and services and upgrades !!
Yes, IL-76 is a mature and capable desing and yes has overall good performace and a reasonable price.
:fly
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
All those countries you mentioned do indeed need a strategic lift capability, they simply won't pay for it. Most of them are hedging their bets by acquiring A400M's though. Irrespective of how many A400M's you buy, there are loads that forces need deployed (sometimes in a hurry) that they simply cannot carry. These are not only tanks, but trucks, earthmoving equipment, helo's etc.seantheaussie said:
Our recently delayed deployment to Pakistan happened precisely because we could not get any strategic airlifters. Availability, not money was the issue there. In addition, Senator HILL has implicated that the policy of hiring strategic lift when required, has proven extremely costly.
Do you suggest that we shouldn't deploy assets to disasters like the recent one in Pakistan or Aceh (Asian Tsunami crisis), simply because you don't like C-17's? That's ridiculous in the extreme.
The fact is that a C-17 purchase (even in small numbers) would give us a level of strategic flexibility that we can not have otherwise. At present we rely on the availability of US/UK C-17's or privately chartered heavy lifters to provide this. As has been shown recently both the US and UK have limited capacity to assist us.
Private charters also have limited capacity and we have to "vie" with other countries to obtain that capability. Should our forces need re-supply at extended ranges into an active combat zone, civilian charted aircraft simply won't go. Period.
Do you suggest there is nothing worthwhile deploying to if it requires us to acquire an expensive strategic airlifter? Even Bob Brown didn't go that far, he publicly advocates such an acquisition...
An who ever said that C-17's were to be purchased at the expense of other capabilities? The C-130H's HAVE to be upgraded or replaced as does the light tactical airlifter. Who says they have to be replaced by a similar platform?
The LTA project alone has a costing in excess of $1 Billion plus and the C-130H upgrade is similar. I'd happily sacrifice these capabilities for an overall capability increase in lift capacity.
As to a Russian airlifter, the ADF would acquire a fleet of "Spruce Gooses", before you'd ever see a Russian aircraft in ADF service...
seantheaussie
New Member
More costly than C-17? Hill should show figures.Aussie Digger said:
I suggest we can spend the amount we want & save the lives we want without heavyliftAussie Digger said:
Strategic flexability yes. Cost effective stragec flexability - not necessarilyAussie Digger said:
You can't selectively quote Brown. Take his entire defense policy or none of it. I am saying that if we ever decide to contribute our fair share of blood & money to an operation we can do so without owning heavyliftersAussie Digger said:
You would have C-130Js flying around with tiny loads including into airfields under fire? The US army is getting very interested in light, fixed wing airlift. I can live with short term lease of C-17 if proved cost effective. Not purchasing the last off the production line which may during their 30-50yr lifespan have to be used in DoA.Aussie Digger said:
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
They are cheapest bought at the end of the production run, hence the sudden interest. I can selectively quote Bob Brown, because that's the only statement I've ever heard him make on defence acquisition matters. I know they won't be cheap. But they should be affordable. The capability they will provide will greatly outway the cost.seantheaussie said:
I'm not at all adverse to a lease of C-17's either. I believe however that the UK has found out that it is cheaper (overall) to simply purchase them outright and has begun to do so, along with 1 additional aircraft (for a total fleet of 5). They have found the C-17's the most useful airlifter they possess...
"How can we take our share of blood and money of an operation without heavy lifters?" We haven't done so for years. Even in Timor we used Antonov heavy lifters to move the bulk of our materiele and that's the closest OS deployment we'll ever have!!!
Anything further afield has required chartered heavy lift. An untenable proposition as a long term solution in my view. It has been shown on our deployment to Pakistan to be unreliable. How do you figure that into cost-effectiveness? We may NEED it someday and it simply won't be there...
Have a look at RAAF deployments to Iraq sometime. They deploy C-130H/J's there every single day and often go in under fire. It's one of the special things that military airlifters, as opposed to civilian based airlifters are designed to do. An A330 for all it's capabilities, is not designed to do this, cannot operate off short or rough fields and is limited in it's ability to "tac" fly.
The US Army has always been interested in light tactical airlift, because it's one of the very few fixed wing aircraft capabilities USAF allows it to have. I can't remember the exact designation off-hand (could be C-40's) but they've operated light tactical airlifters for years...
C-40 is a USN 737 cargo varient, called clipper. The US Amry used the C-21 (sherpa) for intra-theather movment of critical items. Now the US Army are on the verge of buying C-27 spartan.
The C-17 in small numbers, well, like you say the RAF do the same. Maybe the Austrialians will also. However, RAF will also have 25 J series C-130's and 25 A400M's, the aussies will not match this, thus, i hope you will aquire A-400's in larger numbers
:hul
The C-17 in small numbers, well, like you say the RAF do the same. Maybe the Austrialians will also. However, RAF will also have 25 J series C-130's and 25 A400M's, the aussies will not match this, thus, i hope you will aquire A-400's in larger numbers
:hul
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
True on a comparison basis, Australia cannot match the RAF's airlift capability. However given this recent decision, we should operate a future fleet of 24 Medium airlifters, 12-14 light tactical airlifters, 4-8 strategic airlifters and 5 A330 MRTT's, which for the size of our forces, is a pretty reasonable capacity, in my view...Dr Phobus said:
Remember, the entire ADF is about 1/3rd the size of the British Army...