nz enthusiast
New Member
Well they choose the C-17 which is a good choice. Airbus planes have a bad reputation with Air New Zealand, they are so faulty the company is considering scraping them.
C-17 or A400M for Australia?
- Thread starter cherry
- Start date
chrishorne
New Member
Well done Australia, I've been very impressed with your defense purchases lately. The C-17 it seems would suit australias needs very well indeed.
As a Kiwi, I admire Australia's defense spending and wish we as a nation actually took our position in the south pacific a bit more seriously.
Its interesting that it was mentioned that some of the Aussie C-130s may be the end of their lifespan. The best I can expect the kiwi govt to do is buy (be given?) 3/4 of them and then get the Hercules 2020 upgrade done on them too.
In a perfect world I'd love nz to get say 3 A400ms But I think thats wishfull thinking. I really think the A400ms has great potential but airbus really need to move their ass and get something flying. After all Ukraine could be part of Nato in 5-10 yrs (they want to join in 2008!!) and a modern A-124 could be very attractive in some missions which could easily impact the number of A400s purchased and therefore the cost. Nato has already signed a deal for three year leasing of some An-124s from early 2006 I understand.
As a Kiwi, I admire Australia's defense spending and wish we as a nation actually took our position in the south pacific a bit more seriously.
Its interesting that it was mentioned that some of the Aussie C-130s may be the end of their lifespan. The best I can expect the kiwi govt to do is buy (be given?) 3/4 of them and then get the Hercules 2020 upgrade done on them too.
In a perfect world I'd love nz to get say 3 A400ms But I think thats wishfull thinking. I really think the A400ms has great potential but airbus really need to move their ass and get something flying. After all Ukraine could be part of Nato in 5-10 yrs (they want to join in 2008!!) and a modern A-124 could be very attractive in some missions which could easily impact the number of A400s purchased and therefore the cost. Nato has already signed a deal for three year leasing of some An-124s from early 2006 I understand.
Extra capability
There is no doubt that the C-17s are a superb addition to Australia's capability matrix. I do wonder though if the first logical step wouldn't have been to buy a dedicated sealift ship or two. A pair of ships, each providing around 4000 lane meters could have been purchased for ~$100M.
There is no doubt that the C-17s are a superb addition to Australia's capability matrix. I do wonder though if the first logical step wouldn't have been to buy a dedicated sealift ship or two. A pair of ships, each providing around 4000 lane meters could have been purchased for ~$100M.
seantheaussie
New Member
It occurs to me that there is the possibility for very cheap C-17 leases at the moment. The US DOD doesn't want any more C-17, the USAF does. A short term lease of new build C-17 to another country seems a way for the USAF to buy more C-17 by stealth, as there is FA chance the US will allow the C-17 to be mothballed at the end of the lease. So if Boeing? is cunning they will lease C-17 around the world at very good prices.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
We are. Our ordered A330-200's will come with 2x Drogue points, and 1 centreline boom refueller. Despite us only acquiring 5 A330's (so farIzzy1 said:
) they will provide quite a considerable capability enhancement over the 707's AAR's, despite Mr KOPP declaring that we need no less than 18 of them or we're simply wasting our time...
Dr Copp also said in one of his tirades in Australian Aviation that the only reason for ahving an Army or warships is to flush out targets for the airforce...... obviously he did not learn much from Kosovo.Aussie Digger said:We are. Our ordered A330-200's will come with 2x Drogue points, and 1 centreline boom refueller. Despite us only acquiring 5 A330's (so far
enough said.:hitwall
seantheaussie
New Member
You have me stumped there. In Kosovo, as there was no army to destroy in detail dispersed serbs they were able to disperse to avoid airpower.alexsa said:
True
Airpower could cripple them but not stop them. It was only when ground forces moved in that the Serbs were finally bought to heel.
There is only so much you can bomb, eventually direct conflict is required. Gulf war one and two being a case in point.
Airpower could cripple them but not stop them. It was only when ground forces moved in that the Serbs were finally bought to heel.
There is only so much you can bomb, eventually direct conflict is required. Gulf war one and two being a case in point.
In so many words or are you paraphrasing? Do you have a cite?Aussie Digger said:We are. Our ordered A330-200's will come with 2x Drogue points, and 1 centreline boom refueller. Despite us only acquiring 5 A330's (so far
Most of the his stuff (relevant to that topic) that I'm familiar with, can be found at
http://www.ausairpower.net/aar-lift.html
The number eighteen does sound familiar, but I can't find the specific article.
rb
I'm pretty sure that its been the numbers quoted in Aust Aviation. Magoo might be able to confirm that.rossfrb_1 said:
I've definitely had those numbers hit my email inbox via an OSINT alert. The problem being that an OSINT alert does not always cite where the info was pulled from originally.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
I recall reading it in one of his articles either in Defence Today or Aust Aviation mag. I'm certain he stated in his "analysis" (as part of his 747 based AAR idea) that a "minimum" of 16-18 aircraft would be required to fill our strategic requirements properly. Can't remember when it was published, but I remember being absolutely astounded when I read it.rossfrb_1 said:
What reality does he live in to think that number of AAR aircraft is even slightly feasible for RAAF??? The British program to acquire that many is going to cost them $30 Billion over the life of the program and even THEY are choking on the cost of it. Our WHOLE defence capability plan budget is "only" around $50 Billion!!!
If you added the cost of these to the $10 Billion F-22 program, the $10 billion "super" F-111 program, the acquisition of EW Jammer based F-111's (plus their commensurate upgrades to make them useable in a modern environment, to acquire all this, plus the existing upgrades, the Australian Government would probably have to raise the GST to around 50%...
He is in the fortunate and somewhat unbelievable position that he can propound these fantastic (ridiculous) ideas, and not only get people to publish it, but PAY him to write them...
I wonder how much snake oil they bought from him as well???
In his latest Senate submission, he says we need 12 x KC747-400 tankers ON TOP of the five A330MRTTs. There are also numerous tanker/airlift type article on his website, most of which are too heavy-going for me to wade through at this time of the morning (or anytime of the day actually!)Aussie Digger said:
Following Friday's Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Trade and Defence hearing, I think it may be a case of back to the drawing board to Messrs Kopp and Goon. Their arguments were soundly beaten by submissions from the Kokoda Foundation, Dr Alan Stephens, and of course the ADF led by CAF and a team of experts, all of whom backed government's decision to go with the JSF.Aussie Digger said:
Re publications running his work - I can only speak from my own experience, but Carlo is now in the position where he feels he can demand that, apart from typos, spelling etc, editors not change his articles as submitted. Publications then need to make an 'all or nothing' choice. Carlo's knowledge levels can bring great credibility to a magazine, however the 'editorials' he often attaches to his articles have a way of 'polarising' people, and this can hurt a magazine's sales.
Magoo
Michael RVR
New Member
Correct me if i'm wrong, but Air Power really was the only reason that that conflict ended. Not that airpower managed to destroy much of the Serbian army, but that the bombings of belgrade etc made the war unsustainable.alexsa said:
Ground forces didn't set foot into kosovo until the Serbs had signed off that they were withdrawing.
A reference by Kopp to the need for 18+ tankers can be found here: http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2005-02.pdf
An exact quote from the fourth page is: 'the RAAF should be operating at least 18 to 25 KC-135R equivalent tankers'.
He also states in this document: ' http://www.ausairpower.net/AAR-ADF-Issues.pdf ', that the RAAF needs 12-16 heavy tankers or 20-30 medium tankers. Where he expects to get the money from I don't know - disband the Army and Navy I suppose. It also pisses me off no end that he puts 'UNCLASSIFIED' at the bottom of each page, as though he actually has access to anything but unclass. If he's going to try and look cool, he should at least put it top and bottom, like its supposed to be done.
What a twerp.
- Sarge
An exact quote from the fourth page is: 'the RAAF should be operating at least 18 to 25 KC-135R equivalent tankers'.
He also states in this document: ' http://www.ausairpower.net/AAR-ADF-Issues.pdf ', that the RAAF needs 12-16 heavy tankers or 20-30 medium tankers. Where he expects to get the money from I don't know - disband the Army and Navy I suppose. It also pisses me off no end that he puts 'UNCLASSIFIED' at the bottom of each page, as though he actually has access to anything but unclass. If he's going to try and look cool, he should at least put it top and bottom, like its supposed to be done.
What a twerp.
- Sarge
In Carlo's defence, he has actually been the author of classified submissions in the past. His 'Evolved F-111' submission was a response to an RFP by Defence and has classified elements within it, as do various radar-based reports he has written in the past.SargeAUS said:
Magoo