It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Australia requests more C-17s

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 12:09 AM
link   
The Australian government has requested "up to four" additional C-17s. That would bring their total to 10 if all four are acquired, second only to the US as far as fleet size. In addition to the aircraft, 18 F117-PW-100 engines, four AN/AAQ-24V LAIRCM countermeasures kits, other countermeasures, communications and navigation equipment were also requested. The Australian Defense Minister has said that between two and four aircraft would be acquired. Boeing has 10 "white tail" aircraft, or aircraft built without a customer order, available for sale. The line is scheduled to close in 2015.


Australia has formally requested “up to four” more Boeing C-17A Globemaster III airlifters from the US government, a notification by the US Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) posted on 12 November shows.
The notification states that up to four C-17s and associated equipment, parts and logistical support have been requested for an estimated $1.6 billion. The extra equipment includes 19 Pratt & Whitney F117-PW-100 engines, four AN/AAQ-24V Large Aircraft Infrared Countermeasures (LAIRCM) sets, and various other electronic warfare, communications and navigation systems. It also includes unspecified spares and repair parts, supply and test equipment, training and training equipment, technical documentation, logistics, and technical support services.

www.flightglobal.com...




posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 12:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Zaphod in your opinion will the purchase of these aircraft along with the fighters we have ordered bring Australia up to scratch air-force wise , or will we be lacking somewhere . Keeping in mind the word defence . Mind you we were pretty quick to send fighters to Syria / Iraq .



posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 12:47 AM
link   
a reply to: hutch622

The RAAF is turning into a state of the art force, with their Wedgetails, and getting the F-35s. They're even improving the fleet helicopters with SH-60s. Aircraft wise, other than the problems with the A330 boom, I can't think of anything they need to improve in the near future.



posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 01:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Thanks that is good to hear . Perhaps 20 odd f22s would help but i don't see that happening .



posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 01:03 AM
link   
a reply to: hutch622

At this point the cost of them would be higher than what the US paid for them, with having to perform a cold start of the line. You might be able to afford 8 or 10 at the cost they'd run, but that would be most of your budget for the next several years.



posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 03:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

The C-17s were originally acquired so that the Army had proper lift capability when they upgraded to the M1A1's didn't they? Something about the previous airlifting capability not being able to handle the extra tonnage of the new tanks if I remember rightly.

Does this mean there will be new or more heavy ground weaponry or even army air support in the future?



posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 03:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: 74Templar
a reply to: Zaphod58

The C-17s were originally acquired so that the Army had proper lift capability when they upgraded to the M1A1's didn't they?


Not really, before the c-17 Australia had no airlift capacity for their tanks.

en.wikipedia.org...

Explains why they were bought.



posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 05:16 AM
link   
a reply to: 74Templar
No that is just fairy story. The C-17's were never ordered to move around M1A1's. Think about it objectively, how on earth would just four (as originally ordered) C-17's have realistically moved around a total of 59 M1's, a figure now lower due to 17 or more being mothballed due to massive operating costs and paper thin need? They don't. The C-17's actually never had a proper needs analysis conducted (same as the Super Hornet purchase), despite proving very useful. And therein lies the problem with this yet another knee jerk announcement. Nobody knows if we actually need the additional C-17's because no professional, impartial and objective analysis has been conducted and it all hinges on a Government White Paper that wont be released until next year, yet apparently it is yet another announcement that is a fait accompli. I have no in-principle problem with buying additional C-17's I just want to know what the justification is and how it was arrived at? Somehow I doubt we will see that.

LEE.



posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 06:00 AM
link   
a reply to: thebozeian

Yep. Myth busted on that one lol.

If you read the wiki page Bruce posted above, what I took away was heavy lift and reliable munitions transport to foreign countries where Australia's interests are, such as Afghanistan and Iraq, and even Timor.

They were either hiring Russian airlifters (one of which crashed), or using the lighter C130Js, so the call was put out to have their own heavy lift capability pretty much worldwide. The C17 is the end result.

Given the fact they are planning purchasing four more, it says without a doubt Australia is going to be on the world stage for wars for some time to come yet.

But given the Wedgetail, the F35s, Super Hornets and I think the deal has already been closed on the P8s to replace the Orion aircraft, we are actually developing a very modern force for the region.



new topics

top topics



 
5

log in

join