C-17 or A400M for Australia?

[WaterBoy]

Howdy all,

Another perspective on this debate is that the C-17 would give us an airlift capability unmatched by any of our allies in our region, which in humanitarian terms alone, would be a unique asset.

Additionally the 'charter' option the ADF has been relying on has the limitations already mentioned, such as availabilty, but also 'quality control' issues. Not all charter operations are trained / maintained / crewed to an equivalent standard of an airline, let alone air force standard. This is particularly important when tactical military airlift operations are considered.

:kar

 

[JAF]

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 am biased I admit (I like the C-17) But I do take exception to your post. France Italy Spain and Holland will likely buy A400 for political reason. Ask their military and I am quite certain they would all love to have C-17's which are available right now, as opposed to a drawing, which all the A400 is right now. We here in Canda NEED and WANT C17's. As soon as we get this election business over with and a conservative governemnt is elecetd we will get them. Japan, technically is a self defense force, so until their constitution is amended, they have little use for strategic lift.

 

[Dr Phobus]

Ideally most nations need a heavy lift plan, C-5/An-124/C-17. And i would perfer An-124/C-5's over C-17's. Peronsally i see the A-400M as a replacemnt for the C-130/C-160 type planes. It will be interesting if the CAF actually buy's C-17's, for them, it will be a rather high-end item.

For there standing in the world of peace keeping, the Canidians need more tranports.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Ideally most nations need a heavy lift plan, C-5/An-124/C-17. And i would perfer An-124/C-5's over C-17's. Peronsally i see the A-400M as a replacemnt for the C-130/C-160 type planes. It will be interesting if the CAF actually buy's C-17's, for them, it will be a rather high-end item.

For there standing in the world of peace keeping, the Canidians need more tranports.

I don't see the point of buying C-5/AN-124 type aircraft. If a heavylift aircraft is your only requirement, than cargo versions of 747 aircraft would be more than sufficient. Most C-747's can lift 140 tons and would be far cheaper than a dedicated military airlifter, but they need a 3000m runway to stop and need a perfectly tarmac'd surface...

The beauty of the C-17 is it's ability in tactical scenario's, STOL capability AND it's ability to lift strategic class loads and carry them over strategic distances. No other airlifter, including A400M's, get anywhere near it...

 

[Izzy1]

AD is right, the C-17's capabilities and performance are in a class of their own.

The more nations which opt for it the better in my opinion, as I have argued before, western strategic airlift capability is virtually non-existant (apart from the US obviously). Yet there are plenty of nations (including France, Germany, South Korea etc.) who need the capability, yet neglect it.

C-17 offers the best option, you only have to look at how over-worked the RAF's C-17s are to demonstrate the need and capability of the aircraft. My only wish is that the UK Government would put the funds in place for a whole squadron and adapt them for probe-and-drouge in-flight refuelling.

 

[seantheaussie]

France Italy Spain and Holland will likely buy A400 for political reason. Ask their military and I am quite certain they would all love to have C-17's which are available right now, as opposed to a drawing, which all the A400 is right now.

change need to have. A400 is not a heavylifter.

We here in Canda NEED and WANT C17's. As soon as we get this election business over with and a conservative governemnt is elecetd we will get them.

Canada is the safest country from attack in my lifetime in the world yet they don't HAVE heavylift

Japan, technically is a self defense force, so until their constitution is amended, they have little use for strategic lift.

Constitutionally Japan doesn't have any armed forces, self defence or otherwise. There are still heavily armed Japanese engineers in Iraq.All Nato countries I mentioned are larger than Aus & an order of magnitude safer for the 30-50yr lifetime of a heavylifter yet they still haven't spent the money.

 

[Aussie Digger]

change need to have. A400 is not a heavylifter. Canada is the safest country from attack in my lifetime in the world yet they don't HAVE heavylift Constitutionally Japan doesn't have any armed forces, self defence or otherwise. There are still heavily armed Japanese engineers in Iraq. All Nato countries I mentioned are larger than Aus & an order of magnitude safer for the 30-50yr lifetime of a heavylifter yet they still haven't spent the money.

Are you trying to say that technically as per the Japanese Constitution the Japanese Self Defence Force, doesn't exist?

So other Countries slackness with defence acquisition, should guide ours?

 

[Dr Phobus]

I don't see the point of buying C-5/AN-124 type aircraft. If a heavylift aircraft is your only requirement, than cargo versions of 747 aircraft would be more than sufficient. Most C-747's can lift 140 tons and would be far cheaper than a dedicated military airlifter, but they need a 3000m runway to stop and need a perfectly tarmac'd surface...

The beauty of the C-17 is it's ability in tactical scenario's, STOL capability AND it's ability to lift strategic class loads and carry them over strategic distances. No other airlifter, including A400M's, get anywhere near it...

I would never advocate a total commerical like cargo plane, rather a suppliment to military transport types. I agree the C-17 as a loovely mixture of abilities, I guess we just need to wait and see if they will indeed purchase them.

 

[Whiskyjack]

I think 4-6 C-17s would be great for the RAAF, as a Kiwi I would like to see NZ contribute foe one to allow us access to a heavy lift capability for deployments such as Afghanistan.

The issue I have is the C-130J. While a fine aircraft I just don’t think it meets Australia’s needs. I would like to see the 12 C-130s replaced with 10 or more A400Ms with the C-17 included. This force would be a quantum leap in capability.
The C-130 might even be moved to the role of light tactical transport, controversial I know, but I just see it as an aircraft that is out of it’s time, for the role it is filling.

 

[seantheaussie]

Are you trying to say that technically as per the Japanese Constitution the Japanese Self Defence Force, doesn't exist?

I am saying they ignore their constitution

So other Countries slackness with defence acquisition, should guide ours?

Acquisitions of countries in a similar situations should certainly be observed & discussed.
What is more useful for DoA & helping America? C-17 ability to carry outsize cargo into short strips OR MRTT ability to refuel. I have to say the dual role MRTT.

 

[Jezza]

How about new build C-5 Galaxys??
With new technology and engines.

Doesnt the USAF will need new build aircraft cheaper than the C-17s
Their starlifters are running out of time on the airframes.
A joint order NATO/RAAF/USAF will bring the price down?

 

[Aussie Digger]

How about new build C-5 Galaxys??
With new technology and engines.

Doesnt the USAF will need new build aircraft cheaper than the C-17s
Their starlifters are running out of time on the airframes.
A joint order NATO/RAAF/USAF will bring the price down?

The Starlifters have already been replaced I believe.

The US has shut down the C-5 production line and is not far off shutting down the C-17 line...

A larger order would indeed bring the price down, however convincing Government, let alone the US and NATO to purchase C-17's will take some doing.

"Sticker shock" is a very big influence with politicians...

 

[Dr Phobus]

The Starlifters have already been replaced I believe.

The US has shut down the C-5 production line and is not far off shutting down the C-17 line...

A larger order would indeed bring the price down, however convincing Government, let alone the US and NATO to purchase C-17's will take some doing.

"Sticker shock" is a very big influence with politicians...

Another issue also with transport planes is that ultimatly, what you can move is very limited comapred to ships. Thus, very large and very capable transport fleets were always the perk of being a real super-power. Thus, one can argue in most nation heavy lifters in RELIVENT numbers was something not really obtained. One must pay for C-17's performance, verses a more modest A-400M, I am still convinced RAAF will have one type of plane for heavier lifting and that will be the A-400M. Like you say, "sticker price shock"...

 

[Whiskyjack]

I agree with Dr Phobus. While I have no problems with 4-5 C-17s (I can't see more than that) Australia must have the the lift to be capable of deploying within the region without the help of the US, which may be involved else where. Will 12 C-130Js and 4 C-17s be able to accomplish this?

Sorry to repeat myself but the C-130J is just not the plane. It can deploy either 1 ASLAV or 1 Bushmaster, the A400M can do both plus 1 or 2 light vehicles. While the C-17 can double that, but where it comes unstuck is the airframes available.

 

[Dr Phobus]

I agree with Dr Phobus. While I have no problems with 4-5 C-17s (I can't see more than that) Australia must have the the lift to be capable of deploying within the region without the help of the US, which may be involved else where. Will 12 C-130Js and 4 C-17s be able to accomplish this?

Sorry to repeat myself but the C-130J is just not the plane. It can deploy either 1 ASLAV or 1 Bushmaster, the A400M can do both plus 1 or 2 light vehicles. While the C-17 can double that, but where it comes unstuck is the airframes available.

I agree, the numer of airframes is an issue, and that the C-130 J series is just too old, another example of american linear thinking, and the idea has ran out fo steam. The J series has done no way near has well has hoped for in terms of sales. Even the USAF tried to get our of buying an additinoal 52, but the contracted what written in such a way that to cancell would cost the US tax payer big bucks. The RAAF will be well services with a 10-12 A-400M's.

 

[rossfrb_1]

I am saying they ignore their constitution Acquisitions of countries in a similar situations should certainly be observed & discussed.
What is more useful for DoA & helping America? C-17 ability to carry outsize cargo into short strips OR MRTT ability to refuel. I have to say the dual role MRTT.

I am in agreement with you on that last point. Sure C-17s would be great, but at what price? And that will always have to be the bottom line.
As a lateral exercise I put the following forward.
The acquisition of only FIVE A330s to meet the RAAFs tanker needs (Air 5402 http://www.defence.gov.au/news/raafnews/editions/4702/topstories/story12.htm), would have to provide the absolute bare minimum needed. Given that these are MRTT aircraft, isn't there an argument for getting more of these instead? Sure they don't have the STOL like capability of of a C-17, will probably need longer and better quality runways to operate from and don't carry as much as a C-17. But the gain in utility and logistical savings would have to be a big plus. If the first five A330s cost $1.4 billion then a second lot of five should be cheaper. That's better than throwing 2 billion at 4-5 new aircraft of a totally different design, that will need their own support infrastructure.
If you are a believer of the two tier, intra-theatre/inter-theatre structure then it seems a logical alternative?

 

[WaterBoy]

Unfortunately, the A330 MRTT the RAAF has ordered doesn't come with a main deck freight door. That means unless it fits the a passenger door, the only freight it can carry is limited in size to an underfloor pallet. There are restrictive footprint (weight concentration) limits associated with pallets, so apart from personnel & smaller equipment the A330 doesn't match even a C-130 in oversized freight capabilites.

 

[Dr Phobus]

Unfortunately, the A330 MRTT the RAAF has ordered doesn't come with a main deck freight door. That means unless it fits the a passenger door, the only freight it can carry is limited in size to an underfloor pallet. There are restrictive footprint (weight concentration) limits associated with pallets, so apart from personnel & smaller equipment the A330 doesn't match even a C-130 in oversized freight capabilites.

Interesting, can you share your reference with us..

 

[cherry]

I don't know where people are getting the idea that the C-130H will be replaced with either the C-17 or A400M. There has been no indication by Government or ADF that a heavy lift plane will be bought at the expense of the C-130H. It seems as though the heavy lift purchase will complement the 12 X C-130H and 12 X C-130J, and then whatever aircraft is chosen to replace the Caribou (C-27J, C-295M or Osprey) as the battlefield airlifter. So hopefully, if this all pans out, ADF will end up with 4-6 X C-17, 12 X C-130H, 12 X C-130J, 10-14 new battlefield airlifter and 5 X MMRT. I personally think the C-130H should be replaced one-for-one with A400M after they have been refurbished and completed their life extension to 2020.

 

[Whiskyjack]

I don't know where people are getting the idea that the C-130H will be replaced with either the C-17 or A400M. There has been no indication by Government or ADF that a heavy lift plane will be bought at the expense of the C-130H. It seems as though the heavy lift purchase will complement the 12 X C-130H and 12 X C-130J, and then whatever aircraft is chosen to replace the Caribou (C-27J, C-295M or Osprey) as the battlefield airlifter. So hopefully, if this all pans out, ADF will end up with 4-6 X C-17, 12 X C-130H, 12 X C-130J, 10-14 new battlefield airlifter and 5 X MMRT. I personally think the C-130H should be replaced one-for-one with A400M after they have been refurbished and completed their life extension to 2020.

Thanks for that Cherry, I am guessing that the Hs will need to be refurbished as the A400M will not be available in time (if the RAAF was to go that way)? Or just not the $$ available?

I remember reading that the RAF had floated the idea of selling some of it's Js to fund more C-17s, I can't remember whether it was 10 or 15 airframes. This was reported in the media earlier in the year.