C-17 or A400M for Australia?

A

Aussie Digger

Guest
Supe said:
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. :D
I hope it does, it would mean a boost to ADF airlift capacity, and less expense for crewing requirements. It wouldn't mean 12 platforms to support ADF ops, though. It would mean 18 aircraft to support ADF ops, as opposed to 24 we have now. It would still have more lift capacity though.

Another option that has been mooted, is to buy additional C-130J's, plus the C-17's to bring the number back up to the magic 24 figure, which would give us the concurrent deployment capability AND the additional airlift capacity, but would be significantly more expensive...
 

Magoo

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Aussie Digger said:
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 .
Yeah, I know what the article says... at least I should.;)

It's unlikely we could get the aircraft the same price the USAF did, seeing as they bought 180 of them and we're only getting 4 - bit of a buying power disparity there. Plus, the prices he quoted are 1999 dollars, so you can probably add 10-20% to them as inflation. And, as I said above, it hasn't been decided (or announced anyway) whether we'll buy or lease the aircraft, so there's many things to be decided upon before an outlay figure is known. I doubt we'll get six C-17s, more likely 4

Aussie Digger said:
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?
Boeing are currently delivering C-17s a few months (about 6-8 airframes I think) ahead of schedule, so they have the flexibility to take one off the line every couple of months without adversely affecting USAF deliveries.

Word is 36SQN will retain a few C-130Hs for Special Ops work.

Magoo
 

Cootamundra

New Member
What kind of money would we be talking about if we leased instead of purchased? Also are there any restrictions on how you use leased aircraft? Anyone know....
 

Magoo

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Cootamundra said:
What kind of money would we be talking about if we leased instead of purchased? Also are there any restrictions on how you use leased aircraft? Anyone know....
There's a couple of ways to lease an aircraft, but for an aircraft the size of a C-17, you're probably looking at tens of thousands of dollars per hour. You can lease direct from the manufacturer, from a foreign government, or through a third party private finance initiative (PFI). Further, you can lease it and use your own crews (a la RAF/C-17),or through a third party operator who provides the crews and maintenance themselves. A PFI arrangement may even allow for the lessor to use the aircraft for non-military work during times when the RAAF doesn't require the aircraft (such as the UK plans to do with its A330 tankers).

And yes, there would likely be restrictions on how many times you could carry something like an M1A1 in it, and you probably wouldn't be able to fly night time tactical missions into forward unprepared strips using NVGs etc, otherwise the owners wouldn't be able to insure it. But, such missions make up a very small proportion of the stuff you're likely to fly, so such a tradeoff might be worth it if the lease price is right.

Magoo
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
Cootamundra said:
What kind of money would we be talking about if we leased instead of purchased? Also are there any restrictions on how you use leased aircraft? Anyone know....
The RAF are also unable to conduct parachuting operations and low level tactical flying with their C-17's, which I'm sure is one of the reasons they intend to purchase them outright, rather than continue with a lease.
 

Cootamundra

New Member
Aussie Digger said:
The RAF are also unable to conduct parachuting operations and low level tactical flying with their C-17's, which I'm sure is one of the reasons they intend to purchase them outright, rather than continue with a lease.
Purchasing now seems to be the right idea if you ask me, with the production line drawing to a close we can probably get a very good deal and owning the kit would be very handy as we could then use it as the situation demanded. Also I would imagine that heavy lifters like the C-17s would then be around for some time so all in all we could find that we got a lot of value out of some new C-17s.
 

cherry

Banned Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #107
The idea of purchasing the C-17 outright, I too, believe is the correct option as stated before, it is the end of the run of production and we should get a good deal. Also, if other countries such as Canada, New Zealand, and Japan are also seriously considering a purchase such as C-17, then ADF would be smart to get them on board and create some sort of joint project that would also bring the end price down, benefitting everyone. I personally believe that a purchase of 4-6 C-17 for ADF is a sure bet.
 

Supe

New Member
cherry said:
Also, if other countries such as Canada,New Zealand, and Japan are also seriously considering a purchase such as C-17.
NZ?? Source? They'd have to scrap their whole airforce to afford one. NZ is being suitably served by its Herc fleet anyway. If ADF gets a number of C17's, the Kiwis can contract a lift from them if required.
 

Whiskyjack

Honorary Moderator / Defense Professional / Analys
Verified Defense Pro
Supe said:
NZ?? Source? They'd have to scrap their whole airforce to afford one. NZ is being suitably served by its Herc fleet anyway. If ADF gets a number of C17's, the Kiwis can contract a lift from them if required.
I agree, NZ is not likely to become a C-17 operator, possible that they may pay the RAAF to contract hours of service, a very very remote possibility they may even purchase 1 to operate with the RAAF.

But realistically neither is likely to happen as this is not even on the radar here.
 

Sea Dog

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Supe said:
NZ?? Source? They'd have to scrap their whole airforce to afford one. NZ is being suitably served by its Herc fleet anyway. If ADF gets a number of C17's, the Kiwis can contract a lift from them if required.

I would like to know what "Herc fleet" NZ plans to use to move their new LAV's, 'cause they don't fit on the currrent Hercs (nor in the 130J) without MAJOR DISASSEMBLY*, and even then the Hercs have dramatically reduced range. Look at the URL and check out the difference in height between the M113-which fits comfortably in the 130-and the LAVIII.

If NZ is going to play the "we're a bunch of cheap ass SOB's" game with their Armed Forces, then NZ is going to be at the mercy of contract lift for their APC's. So......rapping with AUS about having a share of the C-17 use may not be a bad idea at all.

http://www.army.mil.nz/?CHANNEL=LAV+III&PAGE=NZLAVIII+-+Photogallery

*Major disassembly ends up with an empty LAV, with no turret, no additional side armor, no fuel, low tire pressure, no troop equipment, and no troops (they have to ride in another 130)!
 

Whiskyjack

Honorary Moderator / Defense Professional / Analys
Verified Defense Pro
Sea Dog said:
I would like to know what "Herc fleet" NZ plans to use to move their new LAV's, 'cause they don't fit on the currrent Hercs (nor in the 130J) without MAJOR DISASSEMBLY*, and even then the Hercs have dramatically reduced range. Look at the URL and check out the difference in height between the M113-which fits comfortably in the 130-and the LAVIII.

If NZ is going to play the "we're a bunch of cheap ass SOB's" game with their Armed Forces, then NZ is going to be at the mercy of contract lift for their APC's. So......rapping with AUS about having a share of the C-17 use may not be a bad idea at all.

http://www.army.mil.nz/?CHANNEL=LAV+III&PAGE=NZLAVIII+-+Photogallery

*Major disassembly ends up with an empty LAV, with no turret, no additional side armor, no fuel, low tire pressure, no troop equipment, and no troops (they have to ride in another 130)!
To be fair the lift requires to take a company group from NZ, to say Darwin, and supply it, would still require 12-15 C-17 sorties, then at least 1 more a day, if supplies were to come from NZ. Even Australia would find it hard to deploy a mechanised company by air, 3000 nm from Australia. That is why NZ has the MRV and why Australia is looking at Amphibious lift. As I said above I would like NZ to contribute in some way to an RAAF C-17 buy.

I am also not a fan of the C-130 as a sole airlift platform for a western nation in the 21st Century.
 

Sea Dog

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Whiskyjack said:
To be fair the lift requires to take a company group from NZ, to say Darwin, and supply it, would still require 12-15 C-17 sorties, then at least 1 more a day, if supplies were to come from NZ. Even Australia would find it hard to deploy a mechanised company by air, 3000 nm from Australia. That is why NZ has the MRV and why Australia is looking at Amphibious lift. As I said above I would like NZ to contribute in some way to an RAAF C-17 buy.

I am also not a fan of the C-130 as a sole airlift platform for a western nation in the 21st Century.

Biggest mistake that NZ (and the USAR) did was buy that LAV crap. I'm a USN type, not a grunt, but I'll take the M113A4 ANY TIME, ANY DAY!

Tracks do not deflate! Plus is airtransportable in the 130.
 

Cootamundra

New Member
Sea Dog said:
Biggest mistake that NZ (and the USAR) did was buy that LAV crap. I'm a USN type, not a grunt, but I'll take the M113A4 ANY TIME, ANY DAY!

Tracks do not deflate! Plus is airtransportable in the 130.
Actually we Aussies are pretty happy with our ASLAVs. Luckily we have ASLAVs and reconditioned/upgraded M113's. But the ASLAV has performed well from all accounts over in Iraq. Wasn't so crash hot in Timor as it tended to get bogged I believe.

Sorry to digress :rolleyes:
 

Supe

New Member
Cootamundra said:
Actually we Aussies are pretty happy with our ASLAVs. Luckily we have ASLAVs and reconditioned/upgraded M113's. But the ASLAV has performed well from all accounts over in Iraq. Wasn't so crash hot in Timor as it tended to get bogged I believe.

Sorry to digress :rolleyes:
I wish ADF would ditch the M113 upgrades. A smaller buy of new tracked vehicles is the way to go.
 

Sea Dog

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Cootamundra said:
Actually we Aussies are pretty happy with our ASLAVs. Luckily we have ASLAVs and reconditioned/upgraded M113's. But the ASLAV has performed well from all accounts over in Iraq. Wasn't so crash hot in Timor as it tended to get bogged I believe.

Sorry to digress :rolleyes:
I'm sure that the ASLAV has performed well in Iraq....in southern Iraq. But in the "hotter" areas that the USAR is operating, the troops have expressed strong dissatisfaction with the "STRYKER", and have clamored for uparmored 113's.

How has the ASLAV performed in Afghanistan?
 

Supe

New Member
SMH article: Relief for stretched Hercules to cost $2b

I'll believe it when I see them.

Excerpts from the article-

THE Federal Government is poised to buy at least four C-17 Globemaster transport planes to relieve pressure on its overworked fleet of Hercules C-130s, which have given almost three years of non-stop service in Iraq.

The Defence Force has had to borrow similar aircraft from the US, Britain and Russia to supply its forces, causing resentment from Australia's allies, logistical headaches and even danger for forces and dignitaries travelling in dodgy Russian-built Antonovs to the Middle East.

Defence insiders told the Herald that the US-built C-17 Globemasters had been settled on after the merits of Airbus's cheaper but smaller A400M were considered. It is expected that the new aircraft will be based at Richmond, home of 36 Squadron.

See article for more....
Resentment eh? I thought ADF have contracting arrangements with the C17's? If Australia is perceived as a defence freeloader then this buy should go some way to alleviate that.

Still, I hope the buy goes ahead and as AD suggested, they settle on six.
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
Sea Dog said:
I would like to know what "Herc fleet" NZ plans to use to move their new LAV's, 'cause they don't fit on the currrent Hercs (nor in the 130J) without MAJOR DISASSEMBLY*, and even then the Hercs have dramatically reduced range. Look at the URL and check out the difference in height between the M113-which fits comfortably in the 130-and the LAVIII.

If NZ is going to play the "we're a bunch of cheap ass SOB's" game with their Armed Forces, then NZ is going to be at the mercy of contract lift for their APC's. So......rapping with AUS about having a share of the C-17 use may not be a bad idea at all.

http://www.army.mil.nz/?CHANNEL=LAV+III&PAGE=NZLAVIII+-+Photogallery

*Major disassembly ends up with an empty LAV, with no turret, no additional side armor, no fuel, low tire pressure, no troop equipment, and no troops (they have to ride in another 130)!
Where did you get this info from? At the NZ Minister for Defence sie, a Q/A exists stating that the LAVIII CAN be carried aboard NZ's C-130H's, without ANY significant disassembly. All that needs to be done if for the central suspension/tyre inflation system to be lowered to it's minimum setting. It can then be driven on or off as needed. Trials have been conducted already...

The M113AS3/4 however is NOT air-transportable in a C-130 however, due to it's vastly increased weight over the M113AS1. It'll fit, but the Herk won't be able to get off the ground...

Australia has operated it's ASLAV's in the "red zone" in Baghdad with no major problems. I wouldn't can the M113 upgrade program unless a similar number of IFV's were purchased. Although it's not as capable as we (and by we, I mean me :D ) would like, it's better than either ASLAV or Bushmaster in the APC role...

As for a requirement for 12-15 C-17 sorties to deploy a company group from NZ, I assme you mean a "motorised" infantry company? An entire light infantry company would fit on a SINGLE C-17. Another would be more than sufficient to supply this coy group for a significant time. All they really need is bullets, bombs, beans and water...
 

Sea Dog

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Aussie Digger said:
Where did you get this info from? At the NZ Minister for Defence sie, a Q/A exists stating that the LAVIII CAN be carried aboard NZ's C-130H's, without ANY significant disassembly. All that needs to be done if for the central suspension/tyre inflation system to be lowered to it's minimum setting. It can then be driven on or off as needed. Trials have been conducted already...
The ADF LAVIII, and the RAAF's C-130's, must be totally different from what we have here, cause our LAV's barely fit and our Herks can barely operate them.

The Stryker needs a waiver from the Air Force to be carried on a C-130. The waiver is necessary because the vehicle is too wide to accommodate the 14-inch safety aisle around all sides that is required by the Air Force for the loadmaster (that is for a Stryker without the slat armor, with the slat armor in place it just does not fit at all). The infantry carrier variant requires multiple alterations to fit into a C-130 (note that our Strykers only have a RWS, we do not have turreted Strykers). Additionally, due to it's weight, only a portion of the Stryker crew may fly in the same aircraft--you need two C130's to carry one LAV and one crew. Both the M113 and the MTVL can be carried with a full combat load and full crew on the C-130 without the waiver required to carry a Stryker with a partial crew and only 4 of its 11 men. Even an empty LAV-III is 1,000 pounds over the C-130's short field landing airstrip 16-ton limit. Never mind the reduced range of the 130 when lifting the LAV.

This is from the USAR itself:

Q: For each Stryker variant, what actions (e.g. removal of parts, etc.) must be taken to prepare for air transport?

A: To prepare the Stryker for air transport, soldiers use the Height Management System (HMS) to reduce vehicle height and meet axle weight restrictions. Variants w/ remote weapon station must fold the RWS down*. Load plans identify mission equipment that is to be restowed or removed to meet weight requirements. ICV preparation for air transport includes: ½ tank of fuel, and remove antennae, 3rd road wheel bump stop, left rear water can mount, exterior soldier equipment, upper M6 grenade launchers, wire cutter, and RWS ammo can.

Q: What is meant by “capable of immediate combat operations”?

A: "Capable of immediate combat operations" does not imply Stryker would exit a C-130 with weapons firing, but rather the intent is to land and place the vehicle into operation, allowing a squad to immediately begin performing doctrinally assigned tasks. This was successfully validated in MC02. Within 15 minutes (on average) of exiting the aircraft, the vehicle must be able to transmit data and safely transport soldiers to the battlefield. Restoration times have been developed for each variant.


That above is the "official word" and to support it, the USAR/USAF ran a test for the public in 2003 to demonstrate the transportability of the Stryker in a 130. It was really nice and well done, and the crew did the 15 minute reassembly just in time.

Except it has since been found to have been a fraudulent demonstration. The Stryker was fully stripped, and almost empty of fuel, the crew had trained for weeks to perform the show, the LAV had no ammo or troop equipment on board, and in order to carry that skeleton force (LAV + 4 crewmen) the 130 barely had the range to go from Andrews AFB to Pope AFB.


*This is our little RWS with a .50 cal. as main wep. If we fielded a turret with a 25mm, I can't imagine how that is folded down!!!
 

chrisrobsoar

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
The RAF have leased 3 C-17s from Boeing (another will be ordered) and have been very impressed. Originally they were a stop gap measure, because of delays to the A400M program. (The C-17s taking on the longer range tasks and the C-130k/Js doing the shorter range tasks).

The UK had planned to buy 25 A400Ms.

The RAF planners are now looking at reducing the numbers of A400Ms (12 -20) and buying 12 - 20 C-17s, also similar numbers of smaller twin engined aircraft (Spartan) for Special Operations.

I think that sharing may be the right way for both Australia and New Zealand to acquire heavy lift capacity at an affordable price. Similar arguements could be made for other specialsit platforms, AEW & tanking.
 
Top