NATO C-17 purchase

[Super Nimrod]

As we know NATO is comitted to purchase up to 4 C-17's to be used in a pooling arrangement where each of the members buys a certain number of hours per year.

My question is, do you think that 3-4 aircraft will prove enough and has anyone heard of any plans to increase the purchase ? Four aircraft shared between (I think) 13 signed up members doesn't sound many, particularly if some humanitarian crisis came along where all parties felt the need to contribute.

 

[vivtho]

As we know NATO is comitted to purchase up to 4 C-17's to be used in a pooling arrangement where each of the members buys a certain number of hours per year.

My question is, do you think that 3-4 aircraft will prove enough and has anyone heard of any plans to increase the purchase ? Four aircraft shared between (I think) 13 signed up members doesn't sound many, particularly if some humanitarian crisis came along where all parties felt the need to contribute.

I think that in the European context, the need for large, heavy airlifters is not as acute as that of the US, Russia or China. Any transport of troops or eqipment within the country's borders is usually a very short distance and can be easily done by road or rail with only a small time penalty compared to airlifting them.

In such a situation, it makes sense to pool resources to acquire large assets that would be used only infrequently like these Globemasters. Four aircraft should be able to handle most situations including humanitarian relief.

A question of my own...
Does this figure of 3-4 include the C-17s that are operated by the UK? If those are added to the total, it would reduce the expenses incurred by the RAF while increasing the total capability of the NATO transport fleet. It does sound like something the boffins in the UK MoD would like.

 

[Super Nimrod]

The NATO purchase is separate to the UK purchase. The NATO C-17 will be procured and run in the same way as the 17 NATO E-3 AWACS in service from what I have read. Not sure if that means they will be registered in Luxembourg though ?

The UK is heading for 6 C-17's of its own and various sources are suggesting that they may end up with 8 if the A400 gets delayed further.

 

[mikeh0128]

Nato C-17's

IM with a defense contractor.. i know theres talk about more than just 4 c-17's being bought by nato. i heard about 5-10 countries were LOOKING?TALKING about it..canada and australia and the uk are already buyers..its a good plane..the c-5 is an old plane and needs to be replaced by the new c-17..

 

[gvg]

IM with a defense contractor.. i know theres talk about more than just 4 c-17's being bought by nato. i heard about 5-10 countries were LOOKING?TALKING about it..canada and australia and the uk are already buyers..its a good plane..the c-5 is an old plane and needs to be replaced by the new c-17..

The C-5 is only used by the USA. And although the USA does participate in this strategic airlift capability it is mostly about small European countries, that wouldn't buy C-17's on their own, because they are too expensive for them. But when they pool together, it is feasible.

And they do need them from time to time, to move stuff to and from places like Afghanistan.

I do think they will probably register them in Luxemburg, because of tax considerations.

I as well wonder how they will divide the time between the participants. The difference between Italy on the one side and Luxemburg on the other is quite big.

 

[swerve]

I think that in the European context, the need for large, heavy airlifters is not as acute as that of the US, Russia or China. Any transport of troops or eqipment within the country's borders is usually a very short distance and can be easily done by road or rail with only a small time penalty compared to airlifting them. ....

Moving heavy equipment by rail is probably quicker than aircraft. One train can carry many plane loads.

 

[kato]

Moving heavy equipment by rail is probably quicker than aircraft. One train can carry many plane loads.

At least in Germany, most bases and depots have train links and in some cases fully-equipped cargo railway stations anyway. Pretty much the only bases without any such connection are located on top of mountains. In case anyone goes searching on GoogleEarth now, most such connections are censored there for security reasons btw.

Germany moved most of its equipment for Bosnia by rail; in Kosovo and Macedonia, sealift was used (or rail to Italy, then shipping to Albania); in Afghanistan, airlift (by SALIS) is par for the course.

Always depends on where you want to go. Bosnia also saw simple road transfer btw, e.g. when vehicles had to be urgently replaced (after all, it's less than 24 hours on the road down there).

 

[Sea Toby]

Unfortunately, flying in supplies is quicker, especially abroad. There aren't many trains that connect Europe with Africa, or Europe with South Asia, and/or Europe with the Caribbean. Not all natural disasters occur in Europe.

 

[swerve]

Some years ago, I spent a lot of time travelling around Europe by train. I saw a lot of tanks on trains, e.g. Danish Leopard 1 & Yugoslavian T-55.

Marchwood (the British armys private port) has rails right to the quays for a good reason.

 

[Sea Toby]

True, while you might plan an offensive with shipping an trains, one does wish to get supplies to the suffering quicker after a natural disaster, Even in Europe, the quickest route is by air, say to Malta, Sicily, Sardenia, Corsica, the Belares Islands, the Azores, the Canary Islands, Ireland, Iceland, Crete, and/or Cyprus, etc., etc. While Sweden may be connected by a bridge to Denmark, Corsica, a part of France, isn't.

 

[swerve]

True, while you might plan an offensive with shipping an trains, one does wish to get supplies to the suffering quicker after a natural disaster, Even in Europe, the quickest route is by air, say to Malta, Sicily, Sardenia, Corsica, the Belares Islands, the Azores, the Canary Islands, Ireland, Iceland, Crete, and/or Cyprus, etc., etc. While Sweden may be connected by a bridge to Denmark, Corsica, a part of France, isn't.

There's quickest as in the sense of time of first arrival, & quickest in the sense of "How long does it take to deliver x tons?". Air always wins for the first definition, but not necessarily for the latter. Depends on distance, quantity, & infrastructure. The regular ferries to Corsica probably deliver more tonnage than the islands airports can handle, & the ports can take more, so if you had to ship a lot in, it would be quicker to load it onto lorries & deliver them by ro-ro ships.

 

[kato]

Some years ago, I spent a lot of time travelling around Europe by train. I saw a lot of tanks on trains, e.g. Danish Leopard 1 & Yugoslavian T-55.

There's still such regular tank transports nowadays. E.g. Germany now does most maintenance on its tanks at one central site (Darmstadt), which of course sees a lot such traffic from other bases.
The US Army also still transports a lot of equipment around Germany on rails.

Infrastructure is probably the most important in "how can we get stuff to x quickest" - not so much the speed of the transporting medium.

In the case of Afghanistan, railroad supply from Europe wouldn't actually be hindered by infrastructure (the Transsib and the Turksib connect up till Termez, Uzbekistan, where the German air logistics turntable is), but instead by security concerns and likely high transit charges. Only infrastructure problem would be hooking up the rail line to the airport in Termez (merely a question of money), and potentially the capacity of the regauging systems on the Western border of Russia (from 1435mm to 1520mm).

 

[swerve]

Direct freight is possible via Turkey (railcars are ferried across the Bosporus - been there, seen it) to Mashad, in NE Iran, & not at all far from the border near Herat, with no re-gauging needed. But transit of Iran has political difficulties, of course. There's also rail to Kushka, on the Turkmen border, not far from Herat.

 

[Sea Toby]

True again, Swerve. But blankets and bottled water, along with some necessary blood supplies and medicines move quickly by air. The bulk of the food supplies, etc., can move by train. With a natural disaster, some supplies are needed on the quick. Ever heard of ASAP?

I also remember the Berlin airlift, when air was the only route.

 

[Super Nimrod]

NATO's own website is still only saying 3 or 4 C-17's will be procured though.

http://www.nato.int/issues/strategic-lift-air-sac/index.html

 

[swerve]

True again, Swerve. But blankets and bottled water, along with some necessary blood supplies and medicines move quickly by air. The bulk of the food supplies, etc., can move by train. With a natural disaster, some supplies are needed on the quick. Ever heard of ASAP?

I also remember the Berlin airlift, when air was the only route.

Of course. Air freight is very useful. You want both air and slower-moving bulk transport. Each serves a different purpose. And occasionally - but very rarely - air is the only way.

BTW, water-purification kit is almost always an immensely more effective use of air freight space than bottled water.

 

[Waylander]

@Sea Toby
I don't think that your examples of getting supply and first aid to islands like Crete, Malta, etc. are viable ones.

One just needs these heavy military transporters to transport heavy equipment over long ranges.

If it is about getting supply and first aid as fast as possible to locations in an around europe than there are so many civilian airlift capabilities available that infact one wouldn't even need to get the military involved. Give it to DHL and be happy with it.
And even if one wants to use their capabilities the existing C-160s and C-130s together with the future A-400Ms are surely enough.

Distant landlocked countries are the real deal with these C-17s.

 

[Sea Toby]

As an example, Canada sent its first C-17 to aid Jamaica after a hurricane. Much needed supplies were sent with one C-17 in four hours, not four C-130s. No need to hire a ship, by the way its three days by ship from Canada.

Jamaica is touched by hurricanes almost every year. Relief supplies are always welcomed.

 

[Waylander]

But there is a little difference in the distance between Jamaica-Canada on the one side and Crete-middle europe on the other side.

And the available civilian air transport capabilities are also significantly bigger in europe than in Canada.

 

[swerve]

As an example, Canada sent its first C-17 to aid Jamaica after a hurricane. Much needed supplies were sent with one C-17 in four hours, not four C-130s. No need to hire a ship, by the way its three days by ship from Canada.

Jamaica is touched by hurricanes almost every year. Relief supplies are always welcomed.

Fastest ferry from Athens to Crete is 6 hours, slowest 9 hours. In winter, there are four ferries every day, five on three days each week. The smallest ferry on the route can carry 600 cars or 100 cars & 150 lorries, the largest 1200 cars or a similar mix of large & small vehicles. Replace the private cars with pickups & you have about 100 C-17 loads, with transport to move them where they're wanted, arriving only a few hours later, with several hundred more in the next few hours. Repeat every day. And that's without diverting any ships from their normal routes, just by stopping normal passenger traffic.

The two Greek companies running those ferries can double their lift on the second day, by diverting ships from other routes, increase it rather less the third day, & maintain that increased lift indefinitely. That's two of over 20 Greek ferry companies operating out of Piraeus . . . .