C-17 purchase

[rocco]

I'm posting the story below for a bit of context. With the sort of price made available to NATO, I would suggest that 1)Providing the C-17 line remains open and 2) National's white paper includes a complete airlift review, a small (2-3 aircraft) purchase to replace the C-130 and B757s in the strategic airlift role may be viable. Perhaps structured into a ANZAC heavy-lift squadron.

------------

Defense Security Cooperation Agency

NEWS RELEASE

On the web: www.dsca.mil Media/Public Contact: (703)

601-3859

Transmittal No. 08-32

Strategic Airlift Capability - C-17 GLOBEMASTER III Aircraft

WASHINGTON, May 9, 2008 – The Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress of a possible Foreign Military Sale to the Strategic Airlift Capability of C-17 GLOBEMASTER III Aircraft as well as associated equipment and services. The total value, if all options are exercised, could be as high as $700 million.

An international consortium made up of allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) together with Sweden and Finland, the Strategic Airlift Capability (SAC) requests a possible sale of two Boeing C-17 GLOBEMASTER III aircraft, four Turbofan F117-PW-100 engines installed on each aircraft (8 total engines), AN/ALE-47 Counter-Measures Dispensing System (CMDS), AN/AAR-47 Missile Warning System, Government Furnished Equipment, spare and repairs parts, pyrotechnics, flares, other explosives, Global Positioning System security devices, crew armor, mission planning system software, COMSEC equipment and support, supply support, training equipment and support, publications and technical data, U.S. Government and contractor technical assistance and other related elements of logistics support. The estimated cost is $700 million.

The new NATO Airlift Management Organization (NAMO) will purchase, own, and manage the aircraft. A multinational military unit to be named the Heavy Airlift Wing (HAW) will conduct airlift operations

This proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy and national security objectives of the United States by improving the military capabilities of NATO and further weapon system standardization and interoperability with U.S. forces. NATO is transitioning to an expanded global role, increasing the share of its burden in the Global War on Terrorism, specifically for out-of-area operations. NATO allies have agreed to increase the capability, usability, and deployability of their forces, transforming them from their Cold War territorial defense roles. This expanded role includes peacekeeping and stability operations, as well as disaster relief around the globe. The C-17 will partially serve NATO’s agreed military requirement for eight C-17 equivalents to rapidly deploy a force around the globe, including the NATO Response Force (NRF). Furthermore, member nations will be able to execute strategic airlift missions in support of national objectives, or to fulfill national contributions to multi-nation missions. This capability provides consortium member nations with an organic capability that complements global reach efforts supported by the U.S. Air Force.

NATO does not currently have a heavy airlift capability and must rely on outside sources for its military airlift needs. This assistance normally takes the form of either U.S. Air Force airlift or contract carriers that use Russian heavy airlift aircraft. The procurement of C-17s will increase interoperability with the U.S. Air Force airlift system and will enhance relationships with SAC members.
NATO has the ability to absorb and employ the C-17. It has agreed to pursue basing the C-17s at Papa Air Base, in Hungary, further adding to the synergies of operating side-by-side with NATO allies. Papa AB has already undergone significant NATO-funded infrastructure upgrades required to support operation of C-17s and other large aircraft, and this capability will qualify Papa AB for further NATO Security Investment program funding.

The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not affect the basic military balance in the region.

This proposed sale will involve the following contractors:

Boeing Company Long Beach, California
United Technologies Cooperation,
Pratt & Whitney Military Engines East Hartford, Connecticut

Additional subcontractors may be needed depending on the exact nature of the contracting arrangements established.

At this time, there are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.

This proposed sale will require Boeing to establish a facility at Papa AB to provide C-17 logistics support under the current GLOBEMASTER Support Partnership. The proposed plan will require approximately 7 of the personnel to be US citizens and 7 personnel to be local hires. Approximately 50 United States Air Force personnel will be stationed with the SAC HAW at Papa AB, Hungary. Implementation of this proposed sale will require the participation of up to 10 each U.S. Government and contractor representatives for annual program management and technical reviews in Europe or the US for a period of approximately two weeks per review.

There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.

This notice of a potential sale is required by law; it does not mean that the sale has been concluded.
-30-

[sleemanj]

A C-17 would probably come in handy. But you know what would be handier.

The V22 Osprey. A more perfect match for our operations there couldn't be IMHO. Sure they require a fair bit of maintenance. But oh so cool. Think about things like sea rescues and getting aid into remote islands, NZ has a lot of places around us which are too-far for a helicopter (that's not a flying gas tank), and not fixed wing suitable either.

Bell & Boeing are currently working on a 4 rotor version of the V22 with about the same capacity as the C130. That would be insanely useful, far more so than any number of C-17.

[pablo]

C17s a nice dream, but more attainable would be a fleet of 6 A400m's to replace our aging Hercs.

[motoxjase]

A400ms!!!!!
Euro trash!!
We need to stick with the tried and tested and the C130j is the perfect plane for the job

[pablo]

Not sure if Euro trash is right words. I would take European designed and made product over US anyday. Ever owned an American car? Versus say a German or Italian one?

However maybe we could do with a couple c 17's it's just the insane price of the things that will kill the idea.

[beagle]

C17's too expensive for NZDF, also too big for tasking.
A400's would suit the NZDF on long range bulk cargo tasks.
C130 is ok for short to medium range tasking.
B757 for med/long range RAPID tasking.

My ideal transport fleet would include the upgraded B757's, 5 x C27's and 4 x A400's

[pablo]

Yeah, I agree Beagle too expensive.

The 757 and A400s will be the most likely combo and the most practical

[sniff]

Also, a C-27 is apparently not far off the price of a 130J.
So the extra payload/range comes down in favour of the Herc.

[beagle]

But the operating costs would be cheaper, and have all the C130J problems been ironed out yet. Our Herks go into a fair lot of unpaved fields and were the props not liking stuff like coral etc.
Also i think the public would enjoy seeing the C27 at airshows doing loops and rolls.

[Dave Homewood]

I thoight NZDF was upgrading the Hercules fleet so they don't have to replace them. That's the impression I got from Gp Capt Poot at Hobsonville the other day who said the upgrade provides nearly new aircraft but saved heaps over buying new aircraft off the production line, They'll probably last for at least two more decades won't they?

[pablo]

Yes they are getting upgrades. I think 10 years is what they are expected to last for. Over 50 years out of a plane is not to bad after all.
I think around 2018 is when A400s will be avaliable for customer from memory. (Coincidence ?)

[sniff]

A quote from L3:

"It is SPAR’s innovative response to C-130 operators faced with ageing aircraft and smaller budgets, permitting them to extend the life of their aircraft by 15 to 20 years at a fraction of the cost of purchasing a new one.”

www.spar.ca/pdfs/SPAR_CW_removal_final.pdf

Say, we only got 15 years. The lead up time to purchase any new airframe, and to develop it to full capability is probably about 5 years as a minimum, so we have to be looking and making big decisions within ten years. Time flys in the Air Force. ;D

[sniff]

Oh gee!

2018!

;D

[pablo]

Yeah not long. But the cost of buying a new fleet is going to be Big money over a Billion easy. With all the other current needs of defence I guess they thought a few more years out of the old girls would give them time to save up agian and wait for new technology to bed in (ie the issues over the J's ironed out etc).

[Dave Homewood]

The Hercs have had multiple upgrades throughout their long lives and will probbaly be upgraded again when the current one runs its course...There can't be much original metal in them nowadays.

[beagle]

This will be the last upgrade. They will have to be replaced between 2017 and 2023. The first A400 is suppossed to fly before years end. Pretty sure South Africa is the first customer or is it Malaysia.

[Dave Homewood]

The RNZAF Museum better start planning for another addition when the Hercules retires I guess. We can't not keep one.

[beagle]

I have not heard any more news regards the extensions thya had planned for there.

My dream is to have a house and attached to the house is a Herk Cockpit, attached to an outside wall, so i could use it as my office, lookout the windows at the view sof the southern alps or a harbour view like nelson etc. If the council did not permit this then I could get a whole fuseleage and have it away from the house and use the fuselage as a library for all my books. If it came with role equipment, no need to look for a bunk...

[Dave Homewood]

Last I heard the extensions had just begun some time ago. I seem to recall it was the email info service there when I sent a query they couldn't reply straight off due to disruptions caused by the extensions. Or, did I dream that? Don might know.

[rocco]

Regardless of what people think about the relative affordability of the C-17, I find it odd that some have suggested operating the 757 and A400 together.

Frankly, with the A400 in service, there is no need to keep the 757s. When the air transport review was conducted a few years back as part of DA97, the 757 was considered necessary because of range and speed compared to the C130. The A400 will cruise at .72 Mach at 37,000ft, while the B757 cruises at .8 at 35,000. The A400 also has a comparable range. Note that as part of DA97, the VIP role was considered to be a bonus, not a core requirement.

Also interesting to hear comments that the C-17 is unaffordable.
A pair of 757s, with modifications, has cost as $221M. The C-130 mods have cost another $220M. Pro-rated for airframe life, it has probably cost us more per aircraft than the C-17 would.

Personally I would be looking at something like contributing 2 C-17 airframes to an AU/NZ strategic airlift pool, ditching the 757s and acquiring a twin engine light transport like the C295 (essentially regenerating the capability lost of the Andover retirement). Perhaps keeping 4-5J model hercs to handle some of the day to day stuff.