The RAAF, like the RAF have always been better at staff work than the other services, great for them getting needed capability, bad where the SMEs on the needed capability are army or navy and can't get their message across. The really sad thing is, while the RAAF have been able to maintain, even grow their engineering expertise due to the inherent requirements of air safety, the RAN as part of the defence structure review and subsequent reorganisation in the late 90s saw their engineering organisation was gutted, basically as a cost saving measure and nothing was set up in its place. I can't help but wonder how much of our current issues are at least in part due to this.plus the RAAF have worked out how to get things past the gatekeepers..
there's certainly no appetite to buy second hand ships from the USN. Despite the fact that the USN has a very very close relationship with RAN and RAAF and have been instrumental in getting gear fast tracked
Royal Australian Air Force [RAAF] News, Discussions and Updates
they fought the good fight to keep their engineers and stay away from contractors. look at RAN and BAE, RAN and Thales, Army and the Israelis or French
there's more than a few people who believe that the rush to outsource has compromised latent capability
I have a "favourite" list of companies that I would do my bit to blacklist if we were able to select effective contractors
even those who have good contractors are basically undone as its a management relationship which brings things asunder.
If you could remove the executive in some of those companies you'd have a fair chance at making things work - they invariably revert to form and roll out the "mormons" and everyone then spends their time in contract arbitration etc.....
There are some companies that I would never ever, even in a drunken state with zero co-ordination I'd remember how their management teams have phuqued up capability delivery
The sad thing is most of the technical people are the same no matter who they work for, government, RAN, or a private company, all that changes is who they work for and how much money is wasted by chopping and changing the management structure.
The thing many people don't seem to realize is defence is like insurance, an expensive, non productive overhead, and the only reason private companies are keen to be involved in what have traditionally been government and service roles is to make a profit meaning that for a given result we have simply exchanged one set of overheads for another. In most cases we lose all the advantages of having capability in-house, including maintenance and continuity of corporate knowledge that really used to come into it's own when procuring or replacing capabilities, now that knowledge is distributed among a mix of government and private contractors rather than govt. service and one or two primes.
IMO, unless robust, long term relationships are developed, outsourcing only delivers short term savings. Unfortunately its the short term reduction in outlay and moving costs from one bucket to another that too many governments find attractive.
Jezza
Member
April 30, 2015: Malaysia Airlines is offering for sale or lease all six of its Airbus A380s, its two Boeing 747-400Fs and four Airbus A330-200Fs and four Boeing 777-200ERs as it seeks to restructure following a disastrous 2014.
Malaysia Airlines fleet restructuring - Leeham News and Comment
Some cheap A330 freighters, low miles, all built after 2011.
Great for conversion???
Malaysia Airlines fleet restructuring - Leeham News and Comment
Some cheap A330 freighters, low miles, all built after 2011.
Great for conversion???
Nick underscore
Member
Nice find there Jezza.
IMV, Buy the 4, convert them at Airbus military conversion centre (Getafe), then look to flog a pair to the Kiwis. Everyone's happy.
I wonder how cheap they are?
Jezza
Member
Only issue is they run PW4170 where the RAAF run the GE CF6 engines.
Nick underscore
Member
I knew there would be a catch!
Not sure conformity could be found with an issue such as that.
Shame
meatshield
Active Member
Wow that is an opportunity a bit like the hmas choules
Could they be converted to the AAR role easily?
I always considered that a MRTT without a main cabin side cargo door and strengthen floor was a disappointment; but the RAAF didn't want to fund its development at the time. Now that the RAAF has C-17s would the RAAF want an A-330 freighter even if it was plumbed for air to air refuelling?
Nick underscore
Member
Converted to support AAR? Yes.
Re-engined with GE CF6's? Totally unsure, but wouldn't have thought so. Others with a better understanding, could answer.
Note; RAAF would not operate the same type, with different engines.
Agree. This would probably kill off any thought of seeing them in RAAF colours.
Depends how much they sell for ! Cost of a new GE cf6 engine is approx 10mil i think. Not sure if its a simple switch ? Plus you would recover part of that cost selling the existing engine.
t68
Well-Known Member
Well with the recent announcement of 2x additional C17 and the previous annoucement of a possible 4x aircraft on Nov 12 2014, it appears we may have missed the boat with India planning on 3x additional C17 Globemasters, if the RAAF want the extra airframes and NZ want 2 they better get a move on
http://www.dsca.mil/sites/default/files/mas/australia_14-56_0.pdf
Post-Nepal earthquake evacuation operation success, IAF to buy three more C-17 aircraft - The Economic Times on Mobile
http://www.dsca.mil/sites/default/files/mas/australia_14-56_0.pdf
Post-Nepal earthquake evacuation operation success, IAF to buy three more C-17 aircraft - The Economic Times on Mobile
The thing about the Indian desire is that their procurement process and bureaucracy will hinder rather than enhance the desire. Unless Prime Minister Modi does a Rafale and undertakes a govt to govt acquisition. Regardless of that NZ will have to pull its finger out if it wants to acquire C17s and Australia the same if it wants another two.
Totally agree...as the number of remaining white tails decreases, their desirability increases. I wouldn't be surprised to see more announcements similar to the Indian one. As I've said before, time to get our skates on if we want the 2 extra.
True. If Afghanistan and the ME get sorted out we may find ourselves a bit top-heavy as far as strategic airlift is concerned. Unfortunately I don't see this occurring any time soon.
t68
Well-Known Member
It might be wishfully thinking but not certantly greed on our part, we may have had C17 in service now for some time but these aircraft have to last time and distance of perhaps 30-40 years of service. In the coming years we do not now the repercussions on having such a small fleet we have we anecdotal evidence on what happen to fleets that are pressed into service without required numbers to achieve an effective out come in all aspects serviceability v's maintenance
You dont purchase capability like the C-17 based on wishful thinking or greed and you definitely dont get them based on peacetime requirements.