Royal Australian Air Force [RAAF] News, Discussions and Updates

[phreeky]

You're not the only one (obviously, others have posted unsure whether it's 7+8 or 9+10), I don't understand why people are having a go at you. Announcing the purchase going ahead should've been merely a formality IMO, as the intent had been made clear long ago.

 

[Volkodav]

The initial reports I caught stated that these were to be airframes 5 and 6, now that would have been rich, re-announcing aircraft that had already been delivered.

I think what we lose sight of in here and other defence forums is that those who frequent them follow defence matters and tend to be aware of up coming acquisitions that the general public are not. So what is old news to us is all new to most.

 

[Oberon]

You're not the only one (obviously, others have posted unsure whether it's 7+8 or 9+10), I don't understand why people are having a go at you. Announcing the purchase going ahead should've been merely a formality IMO, as the intent had been made clear long ago.

Thanks Phreeky. Yes, I read about "the announcement" from several online news sources, including Australian Aviation and still couldn't determine whether it was for airframes 7 and 8 or 9 and 10. They all seemed to be lifted direct from the same press release. I missed Friday night's TV news. Maybe it was clearer.

 

[John Newman]

Guys, before this degenerates any further into a 'he said, he said' situation and the Mod team has to jump in and shuts this all down, I believe the points being made by Trackmaster, ADMk2 and myself were not about 'having a go at' anyone about 'confusion' as to if the C-17 announcement was about airframes 7 and 8 or airframes 9 and 10 and it wasn't about any confusion as to what 'the press' may or may not have said.

It was 'purely' about the pointedly 'political' personal comment, eg:

Thanks. So it's just Abbott trying to get some good publicity from a popular decision already made.

So can we leave the personal politics out of this and just put this to bed and get back to discussing Defence matters, specifically RAAF matters in this thread, OK?

Cheers,

 

[Richo99]

According to the US press, Boeing has five C-17s remaining unsold.

Australia to order 2 Long Beach-assembled Boeing C-17s

As far as i can see, orders are 1 to Canada, 2 to Aus & 2 to UAE....I suggest we should put our skates on if we want 2 more...I don't think Boeing really cares about the timing of our DWP.

 

[Richo99]

To be honest no idea hope you are right. i am just stating a preference that I hope we do get the additional airframes, heck if it was up to me I'd be rounding out the the fleet to 12 min, same as the C27J fleet no 100% sure why it's happening in the transport fleet all these odd number airframes when you compare it to the super hornet purchase in lots of 12 Squadron sizes

Its all performance based, just like not specifying the number of patrol boats needed, but how many days of patrol are required. No need to get 12 just for the sake of it if 10 can provide the required output.

 

[John Newman]

As far as i can see, orders are 1 to Canada, 2 to Aus & 2 to UAE....I suggest we should put our skates on if we want 2 more...I don't think Boeing really cares about the timing of our DWP.

Yes it does appear that five airframes have been 'officially' announced as having new homes to go to and five have not, but do you really think that the Government isn't or hasn't been in talks with Boeing about our intentions, and the 'appropriate' timing as well?

You may or may not be aware, but back in November last year the Government sought and received US Congressional approval for a possible FMS of 'up to four' C-17's, see the link below:

Australia – C-17 Globemaster III Aircraft | The Official Home of the Defense Security Cooperation Agency

And yes, I'm sure that Boeing is having discussions with numerous countries, but 'if' Australia's intention is to 'excise' the option for the additional two airframes (again, we already have US approval), then don't you think that our Government and Boeing would already have had those discussions?

If we don't end up with airframes 9 and 10, then I'd be mighty surprised if Boeing would have just sold them off to another party without knowing what Australia's position is.

I really don't think it's a case of 'we better hurry up', I'm sure if we are going to have those two extras it will happen, if it doesn't happen, then I'm sure it will be because the Government didn't want the extra two.

 

[Richo99]

It might sound funny to some here, but if I had the choice of increasing the C-17A fleet from 8 to 10 or see those very scarce defence 'dollars' go elsewhere, I'd like to see the KC-30A fleet reach at least eight airframes, possibly ten!!

Anyway, I'm not in charge of the choices and that's probably not likely to happen!!!

I agree, in a time of limited budget, we have (or soon will have) far more strategic lift than we have ever had before...c17s, LSD, LHDs. IMO additional tankers are a higher priority now, and if any new KC30s are fitted with side cargo doors, they contribute to strategic lift anyway.

 

[Richo99]

Yes it does appear that five airframes have been 'officially' announced as having new homes to go to and five have not, but do you really think that the Government isn't or hasn't been in talks with Boeing about our intentions, and the 'appropriate' timing as well?

You may or may not be aware, but back in November last year the Government sought and received US Congressional approval for a possible FMS of 'up to four' C-17's, see the link below:

Australia – C-17 Globemaster III Aircraft | The Official Home of the Defense Security Cooperation Agency

And yes, I'm sure that Boeing is having discussions with numerous countries, but 'if' Australia's intention is to 'excise' the option for the additional two airframes (again, we already have US approval), then don't you think that our Government and Boeing would already have had those discussions?

If we don't end up with airframes 9 and 10, then I'd be mighty surprised if Boeing would have just sold them off to another party without knowing what Australia's position is.

I really don't think it's a case of 'we better hurry up', I'm sure if we are going to have those two extras it will happen, if it doesn't happen, then I'm sure it will be because the Government didn't want the extra two.

Yes aware of the previous anouncments, and also aware that boeing has stated that until a potential customer has signed the cheque, they have no claim on an aircraft....may be marketing hype to encourage other buyers...might not be...don't think any of us on this forum know the answer to that.

 

[John Newman]

Yes aware of the previous anouncments, and also aware that boeing has stated that until a potential customer has signed the cheque, they have no claim on an aircraft....may be marketing hype to encourage other buyers...might not be...don't think any of us on this forum know the answer to that.

Of course nothing is sold till it's sold, all true.

But again, I'm sure that if the Governments intention is to proceed with the purchase of all four, and it's just a matter of 'timing', eg, two now and the other two announced when the DWP is released then I'm sure that Boeing wouldn't just sell them off to anyone else without our Government knowing what was going on. Also with Australia having been, and will be so into the future, a very very good customer of Boeing and our relationship with the US.

Of course I could be wrong, but I still can't see them 'just slipping through our fingers' unless the Government decides it doesn't want them.

 

[Goknub]

Whilst useful, I believe the C-27s were a missed opportunity to increase our Chinook fleet. Battlefield lift is obviously a crucial capability and has been since the Korean War. A fleet of 7 is far too small and a fixed wing aircraft hasn't been the optimal solution since DC3s circa 1945.

With C130s, C17s, KC30 and KingAirs on board it would have been more useful to double the CH47 fleet. Particularly with LHDs coming online soon.

 

[KiwiRob]

According to the US press, Boeing has five C-17s remaining unsold.

Australia to order 2 Long Beach-assembled Boeing C-17s

That's not what I was getting at, the USAF have a lot more C-17's than they actually need to do the job they want them to do, you can blame that on pork barrel politics in the US. So what I'm saying is that after Boeing has sold all their white tails there's probably a good chance that operators could buy additional frames from the USAF.

 

[ADMk2]

I agree, in a time of limited budget, we have (or soon will have) far more strategic lift than we have ever had before...c17s, LSD, LHDs. IMO additional tankers are a higher priority now, and if any new KC30s are fitted with side cargo doors, they contribute to strategic lift anyway.

KC-30A's even without 'cargo doors' contribute to strategic lift. The KC-30A's as they are now, carry the same freight capability as every other A330, meaning they can carry up to 34 tonnes of cargo as needed.

Or 270 passengers, meaning these are pretty strategic as is...

 

[Richo99]

KC-30A's even without 'cargo doors' contribute to strategic lift. The KC-30A's as they are now, carry the same freight capability as every other A330, meaning they can carry up to 34 tonnes of cargo as needed.

Or 270 passengers, meaning these are pretty strategic as is...

totally agree...probably should have said 'particularly' if fitted with cargo doors...they do add considerable flexibility with respect to carrying bulkier loads.

 

[ADMk2]

Apparently we will be able to upgrade and produce our own mission data files, despite some 'opinion' to the contrary...

Pentagon Contract Announcement

(Source: US Department of Defense; issued April 10, 2015)

Lockheed Martin Corp., Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co., Fort Worth, Texas, is being awarded a $150,609,953 fixed-price-incentive (firm target) contract to provide an integrated reprogramming capability to build, test, modify, and field F-35 Lightning II mission data files for Australia and the United Kingdom.

Work will be performed in Fort Worth, Texas and is expected to be completed in December 2018. International partner funds in the amount of $150,609,953 are being obligated on this award, none of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year.

This modification combines purchases for the Governments of Australia ($82,885,335; 55 percent) and United Kingdom ($67,724,618; 45 percent). This contract was not competitively procured pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 2304(c)(1).

The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Maryland, is the contracting authority (N00019-15-C-0105).

-ends-

 

[Oberon]

Does Airbus now offer a MRTT with a strengthen main cabin floor and cargo door? From memory RAAF didn't want to fund the development of a strengthen floor and cargo floor when it ordered the KC-30As. With the subsequent purchase of C-17 aircraft for the RAAF this was no longer needed.

 

[pkcasimir]

That's not what I was getting at, the USAF have a lot more C-17's than they actually need to do the job they want them to do, you can blame that on pork barrel politics in the US. So what I'm saying is that after Boeing has sold all their white tails there's probably a good chance that operators could buy additional frames from the USAF.

That is not accurate. The USAF is in the process of deactivating two C-17 squadrons (backup inventory) as a desperate cost saving measure dictated by sequestration and, quite frankly, the cost of the F-35 program which the USAF will preserve at all costs. The plan is to transfer the two squadrons of C-17s to the Reserves in future years and they will then be crewed and fly missions. The Reserves are highly integrated in the US Armed Forces and conduct missions just as the Regular Air Force. The USAF does not believe that it has too many C-17s and knows that contingency plans require enormous airlift capability, especially for the Pacific Ocean theaters.

That there are pork barrel politics in certain, but very limited, US defense procurements is undeniable; however, even more powerful is Congress' interest in the ANG and USAF Reserves. It will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to pry those C-17s out of the Reserves. There are significant jobs at stake.
I believe you are misreading the internal US politics of this.

 

[Volkodav]

Guys, before this degenerates any further into a 'he said, he said' situation and the Mod team has to jump in and shuts this all down, I believe the points being made by Trackmaster, ADMk2 and myself were not about 'having a go at' anyone about 'confusion' as to if the C-17 announcement was about airframes 7 and 8 or airframes 9 and 10 and it wasn't about any confusion as to what 'the press' may or may not have said.

It was 'purely' about the pointedly 'political' personal comment, eg:



So can we leave the personal politics out of this and just put this to bed and get back to discussing Defence matters, specifically RAAF matters in this thread, OK?

Cheers,

Personally I miss the days when you could discuss politics, express your objections to something the government or opposition was doing or saying without being labelled and dismissed as a Leftard by anyone who doesn't support Tony Abbott, misogynist if you don't love Gillard, or a Tory if you don't like Shorten, if you happen to mention you like Turnbull you are immediately labelled both a looney left wing commie and a fascist.

There were decisions (mistakes) made in the past that should be lessons learned and things being done and said today that are / would be just as bad, but you are not allowed to discuss for party political reasons i.e. it will start a name calling spat. Reasoned discussion has pretty much been shut down and you are assigned to one camp or another by your position on individual issues, i.e. my mother thought I was a right wing nutter and my uncle (her brother) believes me to be a bleeding heart socialist, that's how pathetically polarised things have become.

I just think it is a shame the way things have gone and the way things are shut down because of the almost inevitability of causing an argument and offence.

 

[John Fedup]

Personally I miss the days when you could discuss politics, express your objections to something the government or opposition was doing or saying without being labelled and dismissed as a Leftard by anyone who doesn't support Tony Abbott, misogynist if you don't love Gillard, or a Tory if you don't like Shorten, if you happen to mention you like Turnbull you are immediately labelled both a looney left wing commie and a fascist.

There were decisions (mistakes) made in the past that should be lessons learned and things being done and said today that are / would be just as bad, but you are not allowed to discuss for party political reasons i.e. it will start a name calling spat. Reasoned discussion has pretty much been shut down and you are assigned to one camp or another by your position on individual issues, i.e. my mother thought I was a right wing nutter and my uncle (her brother) believes me to be a bleeding heart socialist, that's how pathetically polarised things have become.

I just think it is a shame the way things have gone and the way things are shut down because of the almost inevitability of causing an argument and offence.

Volk, I couldn't agree more. Political considerations and the beyond stupid actions of many defence ministers around the world are important with any "defence-talk" conversation!

 

[John Fedup]

That's not what I was getting at, the USAF have a lot more C-17's than they actually need to do the job they want them to do, you can blame that on pork barrel politics in the US. So what I'm saying is that after Boeing has sold all their white tails there's probably a good chance that operators could buy additional frames from the USAF.

Likely true about surplus C-17s from the USAF but this fleet has been heavily utilized and the U.S. would be hurting themselves selling off assets that have no replacements on the horizon for probably decades! Canada should have expanded their fleet to 6 not 5.