C-17 or A400M for Australia?

[rossfrb_1]

I have to agree as well. With regards to the AP-C's I understand we need to be aware of other options but I was under the impression they had plenty of life in them yet, not to mention very good capabilities. Fair enough about the Bou's, I hadn't really though that hard about it and i presumed (dangerous I know) that to re-furb them would cost lots of $$$$$. Also very interesting to note your comments about their speed and payload, brings things back into perspective I suppose ;-0
Coota

http://www.yaffa.com.au/defence/current/12-107.htm
"Lockheed Martin to build new Orion wings
With the RAAF still pondering whether to extend the lives of its AP-3C Orions past 2015 or replace them with Boeing's P-8A MMA, Lockheed Martin will open a new outer wing production line at Marietta to support Orion service life extension programs around the world.
"Interest in extending the service life of the world's P-3 and CP-140 fleet has increased as a result of the P-3 Structural Life Assessment Program (SLAP)," said Rick Kirkland, head of Lockheed Martin's Maritime Surveillance Enterprise. The SLAP program, a full scale fatigue test equivalent to two additional lifetimes, benchmarked the P-3 airframe and revealed that the P-3 was accumulating fatigue damage faster than had been previously believed. "With many of the P-3 aircraft in operation now reaching their service life limits sooner than expected, and with no affordable replacement maritime patrol aircraft available, a service life extension is the only way for nations to maintain this vital operational capability," said Kirkland.
"There are numerous international and US P-3 customers that will require P-3 life extension kits to sustain their aircraft," said Kirkland. "The production of the outer wing is a critical part of life extension that will provide an additional 20 years of service life. The kit also includes the centre wing lower surface, horizontal stabilizer, wing and horizontal stabilizer leading edges, and filet fairings. The kit incorporates design enhancements and new materials with increased corrosion resistance that will provide P-3 operators an additional 15,000 hours of service life with significantly reduced maintenance costs, reduced down time and increased aircraft availability."
There are over 500 maritime patrol and reconnaissance aircraft around the world, some 85 percent of which are P-3s operated by 18 customers in 15 nations. "The growing age of this fleet, and the lack of an affordable replacement, leads to the need for upgrade programs," said Kirkland. "The lowest risk and most cost-effective solution for extending the P-3 service life is a re-wing. This approach enables an operator to maintain a maritime patrol presence at a fraction of the cost of a new aircraft. In addition, the customer can have a high degree of confidence in the cost and schedule because entire assemblies are being replaced with new material."
The outer wing production line in Marietta will have the capacity to produce life extension kits at a high rate for many years. While the location for installing the kits will be a function of customer preference, Lockheed Martin or its authorized P-3 Orion Service Centers can install the life extension kits at a number of locations worldwide."


cheers
rb

 

[Cootamundra]

http://www.yaffa.com.au/defence/current/12-107.htm
"Lockheed Martin to build new Orion wings
With the RAAF still pondering whether to extend the lives of its AP-3C Orions past 2015 or replace them with Boeing's P-8A MMA, Lockheed Martin will open a new outer wing production line at Marietta to support Orion service life extension programs around the world.

Excellent news, this could nicely deal with an otherwise difficult issue. With major procurement programs underway across a range of other platforms putting this one for for another 10-15 years would be a great idea.
Coota

 

[rossfrb_1]

Excellent news, this could nicely deal with an otherwise difficult issue. With major procurement programs underway across a range of other platforms putting this one for for another 10-15 years would be a great idea.
Coota

Just a few more P3 snippets for anyone interested.

http://www.ausaero.com.au/mair/milaircrft-orion-lifeex.html
"P3 Life Extension Program
Between 1997 and 2001 Australian Aerospace undertook Project Kestrel Life Extension Program for the Royal New Zealand Air Force.
Australian Aerospace won the 2001 New Zealand Defence Industry Award for Excellence for this project which has now become recognized
as the economic, low risk fatigue life upgrade for the P3.
This program involves the replacement of wings, horizontal tail, and upper and lower centre section along with refurbishment of the engine nacelles,
replacement wiring and a number of other tasks. In essence these modifications give the aircraft a new fatigue life and at least 20 more years service....."
***********************************
http://www.defence.gov.au/teamaustralia/indexb11e.html
"Australian Aerospace Limited ...
P3 Orion structural life extension and deeper maintenance skills
Australian Aerospace has developed processes and tooling to allow the confident repair and replacement of P3 airframe structure.
The developed techniques are extremely cost effective, even on a one-off basis in extending the life of aging P3 aircraft.
The processes were proven during the implementation of RNZAF Project Kestrel...... "
**********************************
http://www.yaffa.com.au/defence/old-news.htm
"Wednesday 23 November 2005
Tenix Defence and Australian Aerospace formalise AP-3C Accord Master Agreement
The Australian Government, Tenix Defence and Australian Aerospace have signed the P3 Accord Master Agreement
to provide innovative capability upgrades and Through Life Support (TLS) solutions for the RAAF Orion AP-3C weapon system...."


cheers
rb

 

[Sea Dog]

Two hand-grenades for this thread:

(1) A-400M still has a lot of hurdles--political/budgetary types. It may not survive.

(2) The RAAF ought to look at perhaps obtaining a C-17 'sweatheart' deal for long-term leases vs. outright purchase. It's a lot easier to convince Parliament to buy after you've had the toy for a while.

:idea2

 

[knightrider4]

Heavy lifters.

No I reckon the A-400 will get up there are a lot of firm orders I think Turkey is the lead customer and in our region I'm sure Malaysia has placed an order for between 6-8. As for Australia I'm all for the C-17 we might get them a little cheaper as we are obviously purchasing them towards the end of the production run. I think the USAF has around 130 out of a requirement of 180 odd?

 

[Supe]

(2) The RAAF ought to look at perhaps obtaining a 'sweatheart' deal for long-term leases vs. outright purchase. It's a lot easier to convince Parliament to buy after you've had the toy for a while.

lol. I'm not sure it works that way. If the C-17's are purchased they would be tremendous defence asset. It would provide the ADF with much more flexibility and discretion. No more need to call on U.S/UK for a lift nor private contractors to haul ADF folks and gear around.

 

[Sea Dog]

lol. I'm not sure it works that way. If the C-17's are purchased they would be tremendous defence asset. It would provide the ADF with much more flexibility and discretion. No more need to call on U.S/UK for a lift nor private contractors to haul ADF folks and gear around.

Wanna bet?

Remember those 4 RAF C-17's? The political and financial delays with the A400M caused the Royal Air Force to start the Short Term Strategic Aircraft (STSA) programme which selected the C-17 as an interim measure to provide strategic airlift until the A400M entered service. The RAF's highly positive experience with the C-17 since it entered service led to the RAF extending the original lease. On July 2004 the RAF announced that it would buy their four C-17s at the end of the lease, even though the A400M is "supposedly" moving towards production. They also placed a follow-on order for one more C-17.

Supe....that is exactly how it works!!!!:smoker

And here's the kicker, the USAF loves the option of leasing out the C-17's. If the USAF does not get the leased a/c back, then they just go to Congress to kick some more $$ so that the shortfall is made up, and thus maintain the line open. And that is how you get the USAF (whom I loathe, but admire their budgetary skills) to go along with a lease issue.

p.s. Even the French AF had an informal chat with the USAF about the C-17, just in case the A400 is cut--due to the increasing projected unit cost of the A400 (expected now to start at $120 million or more if Germany goes ahead with the widely rumored cut in acquisitions)

 

[Whiskyjack]

The latest Asia Pacific Defence Reporter that the four C-17 deal proposed to Australia (aparently unsolicited) in late 2005, will cost less than $AUD 1 billion.

That is a mighty good offer.

 

[Aussie Digger]

No I reckon the A-400 will get up there are a lot of firm orders I think Turkey is the lead customer and in our region I'm sure Malaysia has placed an order for between 6-8. As for Australia I'm all for the C-17 we might get them a little cheaper as we are obviously purchasing them towards the end of the production run. I think the USAF has around 130 out of a requirement of 180 odd?

The latest edition of Australian Aviation states that an Australian order for C-17's would see the platforms come in at less than $150 million a piece at present... C-17's are starting to look more and more attractive...

The reason why I can't see A400M being chosen is the very reason we are looking at a strategic airlift NOW. We need the capability NOW. A400M wouldn't arrive until 2011/12 at best and it still couldn't carry the outsized loads the C-17 can.

At best A400M would be a good replacement for our existing C-130's. It's not a serious competitor against a C-17 fleet.

If Boeing can provide 4 C-17's for less than AU$1 Billion, does this also mean we could get 6 for less than $1.5 Billion? If so, I reckon we would and that would neatly solve the C-130H upgrade/replacement issue. 6 C-17's provide greater airlift capacity with less crewing requirements than 12x C-130H's, the only thing they lack is the concurrent deployment capability of the C-130's.

If this path was chosen, I'd then bet on a C-27/C-295 to make up somewhat for the concurrent deployment issue, despite their inability to directly replace the Caribou's. Their greater range, lift capacity and cruising speed would assist ADF airlift moreso than additional Chooks, if a smaller number of C-17's were chosen over larger Hercules numbers. This option would also allow for only 3 aircraft types to be maintained, the same as now.

 

[Whiskyjack]

The latest edition of Australian Aviation states that an Australian order for C-17's would see the platforms come in at less than $150 million a piece at present... C-17's are starting to look more and more attractive...

The reason why I can't see A400M being chosen is the very reason we are looking at a strategic airlift NOW. We need the capability NOW. A400M wouldn't arrive until 2011/12 at best and it still couldn't carry the outsized loads the C-17 can.

At best A400M would be a good replacement for our existing C-130's. It's not a serious competitor against a C-17 fleet.

If Boeing can provide 4 C-17's for less than AU$1 Billion, does this also mean we could get 6 for less than $1.5 Billion? If so, I reckon we would and that would neatly solve the C-130H upgrade/replacement issue. 6 C-17's provide greater airlift capacity with less crewing requirements than 12x C-130H's, the only thing they lack is the concurrent deployment capability of the C-130's.

If this path was chosen, I'd then bet on a C-27/C-295 to make up somewhat for the concurrent deployment issue, despite their inability to directly replace the Caribou's. Their greater range, lift capacity and cruising speed would assist ADF airlift moreso than additional Chooks, if a smaller number of C-17's were chosen over larger Hercules numbers. This option would also allow for only 3 aircraft types to be maintained, the same as now.

Yes 6-8 C-17s would solve airlift issues and give a nice deployment capability.

Call me a dreamer but I would love for the NZ Govt to fund 1 or 2, to be based with any Aus C-17s, but provide crew and have an availability for NZ lift. Share the costs as well of course!

 

[Magoo]

The latest edition of Australian Aviation states that an Australian order for C-17's would see the platforms come in at less than $150 million a piece at present... C-17's are starting to look more and more attractive...

Ahhh, no it doesn't. It says about A$220m a piece. The final batch of C-17s for the USAF will cost about US$145m each in 1999 dollars.

Magoo

 

[rossfrb_1]

The latest edition of Australian Aviation states that an Australian order for C-17's would see the platforms come in at less than $150 million a piece at present... C-17's are starting to look more and more attractive...

The reason why I can't see A400M being chosen is the very reason we are looking at a strategic airlift NOW. We need the capability NOW. A400M wouldn't arrive until 2011/12 at best and it still couldn't carry the outsized loads the C-17 can.

At best A400M would be a good replacement for our existing C-130's. It's not a serious competitor against a C-17 fleet.

If Boeing can provide 4 C-17's for less than AU$1 Billion, does this also mean we could get 6 for less than $1.5 Billion? If so, I reckon we would and that would neatly solve the C-130H upgrade/replacement issue. 6 C-17's provide greater airlift capacity with less crewing requirements than 12x C-130H's, the only thing they lack is the concurrent deployment capability of the C-130's.
{snip}

Didn't John Howard express an interest in getting the C-17 late last year?
I seem to remember reading that the budget might have been anywhere up to $2 billion (can't find any references ATM), which would certainly see a deal for eight a possibility. Now that would be something!

rb

 

[Whiskyjack]

Didn't John Howard express an interest in getting the C-17 late last year?
I seem to remember reading that the budget might have been anywhere up to $2 billion (can't find any references ATM), which would certainly see a deal for eight a possibility. Now that would be something!

rb

Don't forget that the $2 billion may also include through life costs. Many projects seem to do this now. I find it confusing to say the least.

 

[Sea Dog]

OY!

If you RAAF guys really really want the C-17 ('cause that Euro FiFi stuff is not worth squat), I'll talk to my people and make this thing happens.

Just don't put that subdued roundel, or the one in the C-7 that's just the jumping rat. I wanna see the nice stuff:

:dance2

 

[Magoo]

Didn't John Howard express an interest in getting the C-17 late last year? I seem to remember reading that the budget might have been anywhere up to $2 billion (can't find any references ATM), which would certainly see a deal for eight a possibility. Now that would be something!

Former Defence Minister Hill specifically mentioned C-17s in the Defence Update last December, and again in subsequent interviews.

Word is the C-17 is a done deal, with government to just decide on whether to buy or lease the aircraft. Either way, the good news is the money for the aircraft is being added to Defence's budget and not being taken from elsewhere. Look for the first of four C-17s with RAAF roundels to be in country by late this year or very early next year, and all four to be here by late 07/early 08.

Magoo

 

[Sea Toby]

I find through life costs confusing too. While France is building its Mistral class LHDs at a cost of $230 million American each, why are the Australian two going to cost $2 billion Aussie each. If you figure the Australian dollar as half Americas' which it isn't, Australia should be able to purchase two Mistrals for $1 billion Australian. Unless they are figuring in the price of around 20 helicopters too into the project, I don't see $2 billion Australian.

 

[Magoo]

I find through life costs confusing too. While France is building its Mistral class LHDs at a cost of $230 million American each, why are the Australian two going to cost $2 billion Aussie each. If you figure the Australian dollar as half Americas' which it isn't, Australia should be able to purchase two Mistrals for $1 billion Australian. Unless they are figuring in the price of around 20 helicopters too into the project, I don't see $2 billion Australian.

US$230m buys you an empty hull from the shipbuilder. You then have to outfit that hull with everything from radars and combat systems, to crockery and cutlery, mattresses, pillows and linen, so you can easily double that base price or more depending on fitout. On top of this you have several months of trials before commissioning, and initial shipyard and sub-contractor support costs (not through-life costs) to add, so A$2bn seems to be about right for that sort of capability.

Magoo

 

[Cootamundra]

Former Defence Minister Hill specifically mentioned C-17s in the Defence Update last December, and again in subsequent interviews.

Word is the C-17 is a done deal, with government to just decide on whether to buy or lease the aircraft. Either way, the good news is the money for the aircraft is being added to Defence's budget and not being taken from elsewhere. Look for the first of four C-17s with RAAF roundels to be in country by late this year or very early next year, and all four to be here by late 07/early 08.

Magoo

Magoo that's much faster than I anticipated, would be great news if it all comes true. Also if above is correct I"M very pleased to the additional funding coming through rather than shaving from other programs. Looks like the surplus is coming in handy!

 

[Supe]

If Boeing can provide 4 C-17's for less than AU$1 Billion, does this also mean we could get 6 for less than $1.5 Billion? If so, I reckon we would and that would neatly solve the C-130H upgrade/replacement issue. 6 C-17's provide greater airlift capacity with less crewing requirements than 12x C-130H's, the only thing they lack is the concurrent deployment capability of the C-130's.

Hmm. 12 C-130H's for 6 C17's... Wouldn't RAAF still want numbers? Would 12 C130's be enough to support the ADF in roles assigned to it? And as an aside, how was the magic number of having 24 of Hercs in the fleet settled upon anyway?

I do think your proposal has plenty of merit and I wouldn't be surprised to see it eventuate.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Ahhh, no it doesn't. It says about A$220m a piece. The final batch of C-17s for the USAF will cost about US$145m each in 1999 dollars.

Magoo

In that article in AA they quoted Dave Bowman, the Boeing vice-president and C-17 program chief. As stated directly in the article, "Using 1999 dollars, the average cost oft the first 40 C-17's for the USAF was US$255, Bowman explained. The average cost fo the next 80 for the USAF was US$198, and the average cost for the next (and possibly, final?) 60 USAF airplanes is US$154 million (AU$205 million)".

Even at AU$205m I can see that a 6 aircraft purchase would run to a project cost of AU$2b .

Boeing also states in this article, that it could deliver new build aircraft within 18 months - 2 years of an order. For aircraft to arrive this year, surely they'd have to be taken from the USAF's current fleet, or perhaps straight from the production line?