C-17 or A400M for Australia?

[rossfrb_1]

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.

That seems rather odd, given that defence minister Hill has previously touted the freight carrying capacity of the MRTT A330 as an asset. Sounds like there's some room for a little excess hand luggage and that's about it.
I was under the impression that the cargo carrying capacity for an A330 was somewhere in the 30+ tonne region, hmmm, time to go have a google.

cheers
rb

 

[Dr Phobus]

That seems rather odd, given that defence minister Hill has previously touted the freight carrying capacity of the MRTT A330 as an asset. Sounds like there's some room for a little excess hand luggage and that's about it.
I was under the impression that the cargo carrying capacity for an A330 was somewhere in the 30+ tonne region, hmmm, time to go have a google.

cheers
rb

i am under the same impression, about 43T on top of load of fuel. I was hoping the person could give us his referenced sourse. All impressions i have seen have a cargo door.

 

[rossfrb_1]

i am under the same impression, about 43T on top of load of fuel. I was hoping the person could give us his referenced sourse. All impressions i have seen have a cargo door.

nothing wrong with your memory (if below be correct)!
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/a330_200/
"....The lower deck cargo compartment can hold six 88in x 108in NATO standard pallets plus two LD3 containers...
Even with a full fuel load, the aircraft has the capacity to carry 43t of cargo. The aircraft can carry up to 285 passengers..."

cheers
rb

 

[Aussie Digger]

43T, a bit short of 167,000lb's payload of C-17's isn't it? Definitely smaller than the 140T payload of C-747 variants...

The RAAF doesn't need to move ASLAV's and Bushmasters etc by air. It does this by sea. With a new RO/RO sealift ship and the new Amphibs to replace HMAS Manoora/Kanimbla and HMAS Tobruk, we will be able to move armour anywhere relatively quickly anyway. The 40 odd armoured vehicles deployed to Al Muthana in Iraq earlier this year were delivered within 10 days... A new high speed sealift ship will greatly improve upon this capability.

During East Timor HMAS Jervis Bay (pics here: http://www.specialoperations.com/Navy/SBR/Jervis_Bay.htm) moved all our heavy equipment quicker than the rest of our transport assets combined could have managed. Hoepfully a similar ship to this will be acquired...

What we need heavy lift for is the ability to lift more troops, equipment (other than armour) and logistical support, further distances, into the same sort of short or rough runways. A330's can't do that, even given their limited cargo capacity...

 

[rossfrb_1]

43T, a bit short of 167,000lb's payload of C-17's isn't it? Definitely smaller than the 140T payload of C-747 variants...

The RAAF doesn't need to move ASLAV's and Bushmasters etc by air. It does this by sea. With a new RO/RO sealift ship and the new Amphibs to replace HMAS Manoora/Kanimbla and HMAS Tobruk, we will be able to move armour anywhere relatively quickly anyway. The 40 odd armoured vehicles deployed to Al Muthana in Iraq earlier this year were delivered within 10 days... A new high speed sealift ship will greatly improve upon this capability.

During East Timor HMAS Jervis Bay (pics here: http://www.specialoperations.com/Navy/SBR/Jervis_Bay.htm) moved all our heavy equipment quicker than the rest of our transport assets combined could have managed. Hoepfully a similar ship to this will be acquired...

What we need heavy lift for is the ability to lift more troops, equipment (other than armour) and logistical support, further distances, into the same sort of short or rough runways. A330's can't do that, even given their limited cargo capacity...

I agree heavy lift of tanks etc is best left to the two new LHDs.
(I am unfamiliar with the idea of a new RO-Ro ship for the RAN?)
43T is still 43T, but the ADF would get at least 8 airframes for the AUD 2 billion that the government seems willing to splash out on, instead of 4-5 C-17s. PLUS they are also aerial refuellers.
Do you think that the current order of five A330s is enough?
Plus they would slot in with existing support infrastructure (cost savings - government bean counters love that).
It's all about trade offs. The C-17 is top notch no doubt, it would definitely be a great asset......also would be a great BIG EXPENSIVE asset!
Re HMAS Jervis Bay - yep great idea, but where is she now?
The RAN seemed to have no problems relinquishing the lease not that long after East Timor. I could never understand it given the sterling service that the chunder chariot provided during ET ops.
I have heard nothing to suggest that the RAN is even considering such a thing as a new fast transport ship. I'd be delighted to be told otherwise.
Something like the new 112 metre incat, I think, would be a great ADF asset.
http://www.incat.com.au/news/news.cgi?articleID=63881&year=2005


merry xmas

rb

 

[Aussie Digger]

Merry Christmas Guys.

The additional Sea Lift ship was in the White Paper. The new amphibs will replace firstly HMAS Tobruk and then either Kanimbla or Manoora. The remaining LPA will then be replaced by a new "fast" RoRo capable sea lift ship at around 2015. Hopefully a fast cat like Jervis Bay only bigger will be chosen...

As to the A330's, yes I agree the ADF needs more. But then I think the ADF needs more of everything.

Irrespective of how many A330's we get, it still won't solve the problem of lifting heavy loads and despositing them into short or rough fields at extended range from Australia. Plus a fleet of 4 C-17's and our current MRTT's gives us 9 heavy lifters...

 

[WaterBoy]

Hi All,

The RAAF MRTT A330 Does not have a main deck door. No A330's do. No freight versions have been built. Hence the largest pallet/ cargo the A330 can carry is 88 x 108 in. There was a freight verson planned for release, but no orders were forthcoming, ie no research money so the door doesn't exist.

I'm not stating that the A330 can't carry 43t, it can, but it is volumetrically & density limited to that an an LD3 container. Fine for an airline, but from a military strategic airlift standpoint, the A330 MRTT just means QANTAS won't fly the troops to overseas deployments, the RAAF will, with the USAF (C-17) or RAN carrying the heavy stuff.

Happy Christmas & best wishes for the New Year! :xmas

 

[pepsi]

There was something in the news today about the 'ageing C-130s'.. Apparently, the amount of vibrations in them can temporarily impair motor and memory skills

Riiiight.. if it were me, i'd be more shaken up by the jumping out part than the bumpy ride part lol

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17672909-421,00.html

Thats the story, it mentions C-17s and A400M's

Edit: Oh and fwiw, i think we should order a mix, maybe something like ~4 C-17s for larger and further deployments such as Iraq/Afghanistan where i believe we leased a C-17 to provide us with that capability, and maybe 8 - 12 A400M's for smaller deployments and national/regional situations where we don't need, or can't land a C-17 (although im not sure on the landing distances and stuff, i have a feeling the C-17 doesn't require as large of a runway as i imagine, either way)

 

[Whiskyjack]

There was something in the news today about the 'ageing C-130s'.. Apparently, the amount of vibrations in them can temporarily impair motor and memory skills

Riiiight.. if it were me, i'd be more shaken up by the jumping out part than the bumpy ride part lol

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17672909-421,00.html

Thats the story, it mentions C-17s and A400M's

Edit: Oh and fwiw, i think we should order a mix, maybe something like ~4 C-17s for larger and further deployments such as Iraq/Afghanistan where i believe we leased a C-17 to provide us with that capability, and maybe 8 - 12 A400M's for smaller deployments and national/regional situations where we don't need, or can't land a C-17 (although im not sure on the landing distances and stuff, i have a feeling the C-17 doesn't require as large of a runway as i imagine, either way)

Interesting that it is the J model that the article refers to, I had also herd (not sure as to accuracy tho) that advance guided munitions were not being carried in the Js due to vibration.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Interesting that it is the J model that the article refers to, I had also herd (not sure as to accuracy tho) that advance guided munitions were not being carried in the Js due to vibration.

That would be a bizaare set of circumstances. I know that Vipac did 4-5 years of work on the C130H's for minimising noise and vibration. They also did substantial work on the AP3-C's.

One would have thought that at least some of that NV management work was transferrable to the J's and that this would be a "trivial" issue.

It appears that someone has obviously been "signing off" on things prematurely.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Interesting that it is the J model that the article refers to, I had also herd (not sure as to accuracy tho) that advance guided munitions were not being carried in the Js due to vibration.

When would our "J's" have need to carry "advanced guided munitions" anyway? In Iraq in 2003 the RAAF purchased all it's munitions "in-theatre" from the US.

In Afghan, our only PGM deployed was our Javelin ATGW's. Again, I presume we're hooked into the US logistics system as our warstock of Javelin missiles, has yet to arrive...

The Al Muthana's group deployed by HMAS Tobruk. I believe they have taken Javelin's with them. Again we have no Javelin ATGW warstock.

In Australia all our munitions for "exe's" are moved by road or ship.

I can't (offhand) think of an occasion when RAAF Herks (of any model) would have needed to move PGM's. I can't even think of an ex where M198's and "Copperheads" were moved by the RAAF...

 

[Whiskyjack]

I believe this was referring to RAF Js, and it was about two years ago. I know vibration of the 6 bladed prop has been an ongoing issue, it will be interesting to see how the A400M manages

 

[Dr Phobus]

USAF will not require any more than 180 C-17's, so will boeing keep the production lines open ? will nations even be able to order new build c-17's, right now the production will cease at 185, with 5 for the RAF.

So, what implications for RAAF and the A-400M

 

[Aussie Digger]

USAF will not require any more than 180 C-17's, so will boeing keep the production lines open ? will nations even be able to order new build c-17's, right now the production will cease at 185, with 5 for the RAF.

So, what implications for RAAF and the A-400M

IIRC, the USAF only has about 130 C-17's in-service at present, so the line will be open for some time yet to come I should think. Plus Defence will decide what it's going to do, by February or March (in time for the new capability plan) at the latest, if it hasn't already.

 

[Dr Phobus]

I see, so the order for the USAF was not fulfilled yet. So it does give the RAAF and RAF some more time, however, in the more medium term, it looks like the A-400M will be the only western "larger" transport on the market.

And Australia will make a decision in the early part of this year. The RAF also want to buy at least one more, but they hope more (as if that will happen).

 

[Whiskyjack]

I see, so the order for the USAF was not fulfilled yet. So it does give the RAAF and RAF some more time, however, in the more medium term, it looks like the A-400M will be the only western "larger" transport on the market.

And Australia will make a decision in the early part of this year. The RAF also want to buy at least one more, but they hope more (as if that will happen).

Another dimension to this issue is that IF the USAF is restricted to 180 C-17s rather than 220, then countries like Australia, Canada and to a lesser extent Britain, will have less ability to uses USAF C-17s to deploy as the US will have less C-17s themselves.

I hope that makes sense…

Also if the USAF is not going to buy the other 40 airframes then it would push thew cost of the C-17 up for any other customer as well, as US policy is to spread charge a proportional development cost into the unit price.

 

[cherry]

A mate of mine got himself an introductory copy of the latest ADBR magazine in which he forwarded on to me. An interesting article looks at the possible Phase 3 of AIR 8000, the heavy lift requirement. I don't want to type out the entire article but one paragraph that I found extremely interesting was as follows:

"Various combinations will no doubt be examined by the Department of Defence, however, internal discussion of the mostly likely preferred selections appear to support a long-term RAAF airlift structure of: 4 x C-130Hs (dedicated to SOCOM); 12-18 C-130Js, and 4-6 x C-17s. Six more of the latest C-130J(B) models are considered required should the Government opt against C-17s and choose up to ten A400Ms."

I'm not sure whether this means that up to 18 C-130Js will be required with 4-6 C-17s, or, whether we will end up with 4-6 C-17s and 12 C-130Js plus whatever aircraft is purchased under the Battlefield Airlifter phase.

But, what I found most interesting is the part of retaining at least 4 x C-130H for our special forces. In another part of this article it states that if this arguement was supported it would see 2 x C-130H converted into "a dedicated fit-out of night operations/communications suppression equipment and air-based fire support (AC-130Us), similar to those used by the United States." Another 2 x C-130H would most likely be converted to something similar to the MC-130 Talon.

Food for thought.....

 

[Aussie Digger]

A mate of mine got himself an introductory copy of the latest ADBR magazine in which he forwarded on to me. An interesting article looks at the possible Phase 3 of AIR 8000, the heavy lift requirement. I don't want to type out the entire article but one paragraph that I found extremely interesting was as follows:

"Various combinations will no doubt be examined by the Department of Defence, however, internal discussion of the mostly likely preferred selections appear to support a long-term RAAF airlift structure of: 4 x C-130Hs (dedicated to SOCOM); 12-18 C-130Js, and 4-6 x C-17s. Six more of the latest C-130J(B) models are considered required should the Government opt against C-17s and choose up to ten A400Ms."

I'm not sure whether this means that up to 18 C-130Js will be required with 4-6 C-17s, or, whether we will end up with 4-6 C-17s and 12 C-130Js plus whatever aircraft is purchased under the Battlefield Airlifter phase.

But, what I found most interesting is the part of retaining at least 4 x C-130H for our special forces. In another part of this article it states that if this arguement was supported it would see 2 x C-130H converted into "a dedicated fit-out of night operations/communications suppression equipment and air-based fire support (AC-130Us), similar to those used by the United States." Another 2 x C-130H would most likely be converted to something similar to the MC-130 Talon.

Food for thought.....

It is indeed food for thought, though in more ways than one. For instance, the RAAF has a pressing need for greater airlift capacity right now. Tjis counts heavily in the favour of C-17's, as does the aircraft's superlative individual capability. This same problem also counts against the A400M, at least in the near term.

Another issue counting against it, is the number of RAAF aircrews and maintenance facilities required if the 18 odd C-103J's and 10 or so A400M's, plus the 4 C-130H and the battlefield airlifter were all to be acquired. Many more crews than are currently operated would be required for such a force and as always, recruiting is a problem, as is the long term expense of greater manpower...

On top of this, the A400m, despite it's significantly greater capability than the C-130 series still cannot provide the oversize lift capability that the C-17 does, and we may still be required to charter USAF/RAF C-17's for some operations anyway...

This is why I think the C-17 option will be chosen. The C-130H upgrade scrapped (or at least limited) and possibly replaced by new build C-130J's.

The AC-130 gunship proposal is interesting. I think RAAF's close air support capabilities have been largely ignored over the years despite the ADF predominantly engaging in operations where such a capability would be very useful...

 

[Cootamundra]

But, what I found most interesting is the part of retaining at least 4 x C-130H for our special forces. In another part of this article it states that if this arguement was supported it would see 2 x C-130H converted into "a dedicated fit-out of night operations/communications suppression equipment and air-based fire support (AC-130Us), similar to those used by the United States." Another 2 x C-130H would most likely be converted to something similar to the MC-130 Talon. Food for thought.....

Cherry that's a very interesting point you've made and to be honest that is the first I've heard of us kitting out the H models into SOCOM birds. No doubt the SASr lads would be well pleased and no doubt they would see some action. But what mods would be required? And most interestingly, what kind of air-based fir support are we talking about?

 

[Whiskyjack]

I agree with AD, while I like the A400 the force mix Cherry has posted is a good solution, one problem I have with it is why use older Hs?

Would it not be better to have 12-18 Js 4-6 C-17s and another 4 Js as the spec ops planes? Logistically it would be much easier to support.

On another note it is good to see that Spec Ops is being given the propriety it deserves. It would be good to see a specialised helicopter introduced as well, the CH-47 would have to be the preferred candidate, as it is already in service and has the capabilities that are needed.