Yeah, I know, I know. I am just using the Canadian mindset that if we have to make do, which we do, the c27 is an excellent compromise. we will be getting some, so why not just get more. less airframes to train on ,less parts to stock (commonality) . I do not think we can get 2 c27 for ea c130, but what I mean is that we can have @ least twice as many available ( servicable) than we have c130s now or for the past ... 10 years.
Strategic vs. Tactical Airlift - What balance do we need? (from: Military wins no matter what after election)
- Thread starter AoD71
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
If you are planning on using the FWSAR aircraft for domestic transport, you should consider cargo capability and passenger capability. The C27J can carry 3 standard 108" by 88" pallets loaded 80" high as well as a partial (1/2) pallet on the ramp; the CASA 295 can carry 5 standard 108" by 88" pallets loaded 65.5" high. Incidentally, the Chinook also carries standard pallets, and is also limited at 65.5" high.
The C27J is rated to carry 46 troops with 23.35 sq m floor space, the CASA 295 can carry 71 troops with 29.95 sq m of floor space.
The point is that you need to consider cube size, as well as what you plan to do with the cargo when you deliver it.
The C27J is rated to carry 46 troops with 23.35 sq m floor space, the CASA 295 can carry 71 troops with 29.95 sq m of floor space.
The point is that you need to consider cube size, as well as what you plan to do with the cargo when you deliver it.
I've beat up the Casa 295 to death, Randy ( BTW there's a "rescue Randy" employed by Casa out there somewhere, used to run 19 wing...) in the FWSAR thread, so I won't get into a pissing match abourt its unsuitability here, suffice to say, IMO, that c295 is not a suitable SAR platform, hence not suited to our "tactical" or domestic transport role. you can load a pallet into a c295, sure, but you can't move past it... and it's too slow.
Didn't the US have to ground their c27's after 10 years due to maintenance nightmares & lack of spares.
Is the C27J any better, will we be getting hanger queens? Can Alenia support the a/c in service. Its been around awhile how many are in operational service? Is the CASA any better? At least there are large numbers in service with quit a few countries. The Aussies don't think there is even an A/C that can match the old Caribou in performance even though there trying to keep theirs going with bailing wire.
Is the C27J any better, will we be getting hanger queens? Can Alenia support the a/c in service. Its been around awhile how many are in operational service? Is the CASA any better? At least there are large numbers in service with quit a few countries. The Aussies don't think there is even an A/C that can match the old Caribou in performance even though there trying to keep theirs going with bailing wire.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 360
I thought that this article on the C-130J might be of interest to readers of this thread: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/printpage/0,5942,17672908,00.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Print this page
Flights risk shaking fight out of troops
John Kerin
28dec05
PARATROOPERS who fly to war zones on an RAAF C-130 Hercules - the main transport plane of the Australian Defence Force - could be left too shaken up to fight.
A report by the Defence Science and Technology Organisation suggests engine noise and vibration aboard the C-130J transport aircraft can at least temporarily impair human motor and memory skills.
It suggests troops to be parachuted into war zones aboard a C-130J should be seated to avoid the aircraft's high-vibration zones - usually the cabin seating area nearest the engines.
It also suggests ADF medical staff and the often critically ill patients they evacuate from war and disaster zones should avoid sitting in these areas.
And though there are few long-term or chronic effects for healthy crew or passengers, some have reported back aches, stomach aches, temporary loss of feeling in the legs and fatigue.
The report says some types of airborne noise and vibration can harm passengers after as little as 30 minutes' exposure. Troops seated in high-vibration zones for long periods "might not be able to carry out their duties at peak level even some time after leaving the aircraft", it says.
"Alarmingly, there is some evidence that exposure to vibration might result in some suppression of reflex responses.
"In the absence of scientific evidence that the vibration environment of the C-130J has no significant impact on the physical and mental functioning required for military operations, (those involved in) airdrop and combat air-land operations should not be seated in the high-vibration zone for long periods."
The report says the impact of vibrations on patients is unknown but recommends passengers also not be seated in high-vibration zones for long periods.
The C-130J and its predecessor the C-130H are considered to be among the safest aircraft in the RAAF - but they have never been known for comfort.
The Hercules has performed outstandingly in ferrying troops and supplies in war zones and disaster zone evacuations.
Among solutions, the report suggests fitting the aircraft with padded seating and better insulation for the aircraft floor.
The report comes at a time when Defence Minister Senator Robert Hill is considering leasing or buying either four giant US C-17s or eight smaller Airbus A400M propeller-driven aircraft to update the transport fleet.
The purchase of the big jets would mean the Government is likely to replace fewer of its 24-strong Hercules fleet.
privacy terms © The Australian
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Print this page
Flights risk shaking fight out of troops
John Kerin
28dec05
PARATROOPERS who fly to war zones on an RAAF C-130 Hercules - the main transport plane of the Australian Defence Force - could be left too shaken up to fight.
A report by the Defence Science and Technology Organisation suggests engine noise and vibration aboard the C-130J transport aircraft can at least temporarily impair human motor and memory skills.
It suggests troops to be parachuted into war zones aboard a C-130J should be seated to avoid the aircraft's high-vibration zones - usually the cabin seating area nearest the engines.
It also suggests ADF medical staff and the often critically ill patients they evacuate from war and disaster zones should avoid sitting in these areas.
And though there are few long-term or chronic effects for healthy crew or passengers, some have reported back aches, stomach aches, temporary loss of feeling in the legs and fatigue.
The report says some types of airborne noise and vibration can harm passengers after as little as 30 minutes' exposure. Troops seated in high-vibration zones for long periods "might not be able to carry out their duties at peak level even some time after leaving the aircraft", it says.
"Alarmingly, there is some evidence that exposure to vibration might result in some suppression of reflex responses.
"In the absence of scientific evidence that the vibration environment of the C-130J has no significant impact on the physical and mental functioning required for military operations, (those involved in) airdrop and combat air-land operations should not be seated in the high-vibration zone for long periods."
The report says the impact of vibrations on patients is unknown but recommends passengers also not be seated in high-vibration zones for long periods.
The C-130J and its predecessor the C-130H are considered to be among the safest aircraft in the RAAF - but they have never been known for comfort.
The Hercules has performed outstandingly in ferrying troops and supplies in war zones and disaster zone evacuations.
Among solutions, the report suggests fitting the aircraft with padded seating and better insulation for the aircraft floor.
The report comes at a time when Defence Minister Senator Robert Hill is considering leasing or buying either four giant US C-17s or eight smaller Airbus A400M propeller-driven aircraft to update the transport fleet.
The purchase of the big jets would mean the Government is likely to replace fewer of its 24-strong Hercules fleet.
privacy terms © The Australian
- Reaction score
- 8,201
- Points
- 1,160
I wonder if that "high vibration" has anything to do with those 6 bladed "mix-master" propellers? They apparently also contributed to concerns about a high level of turbulence affecting jumpers on exit IIRC.
Interestingly the C-295, the C27J and the A400M all use/will use similar types of propellers (8 blades on the A400). I believe that these are largely responsible for increases in fuel efficiency and altitude.
Interestingly the C-295, the C27J and the A400M all use/will use similar types of propellers (8 blades on the A400). I believe that these are largely responsible for increases in fuel efficiency and altitude.
- Reaction score
- 332
- Points
- 880
kj_gully said:
KJ, I think they are one and the same - peruse his profile.
You could be right Kirkhill - about the vibration issues. Flying on turbo-prop aircraft has never been a comfortable experience. Take out the excess insulation and vibration dampening niceties and the ride only gets worse. I don't think the answer is moving the troops out from the high vibration area though, as that would dramatically reduce the number of troops it could carry into theatre.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
For KJ_Gully and Zoomie, if you looked at my profile you will know that I am the guy from 19 Wing - I have been called that by the SAR community for a long time. I used this name to ensure that you, and the rest of the SAR community, can identify me, because those who know me will also know that I will neither peddle nor accept BS, regardless of the consequences.
I am currently self-employed, and while I have done some work for EADS, I have also worked for others who had questions about our current Air Mobility and SAR forces. My post was intended to provide some basic facts, not slanted to any one product, to raise the level of discussion a bit. Hopefully it came across that way.
My main interest remains the SAR community, and ensuring that they get the best new equipment that they can, recognizing that our track record in procurement has been pretty spotty. We were sold on the Cormorant, and supported the acquisition despite concerns over the tail rotor problems that the aircraft had since the beginning. We are paying for this today. Our seniors traded off military maintenance personnel in order to get the aircraft – only to find out that the serviceability of the new Cormorant was no better than that of the Labrador. The CF needs to make sure that they get the facts on the potential candidates prior to making a commitment, something that has not necessarily been done in the past.
I have done quite a bit of research on the contenders, not only for the FWSAR but also for the transport requirement. I began that research well before I left the military, and have continued it since. Suffice to say that glossy brochures from any aircraft manufacturer, or from anyone else with an axe to grind (including some from within DND), need to be carefully reviewed and pointed questions asked. Without slamming anyone, it appears that the procurement process to date has ignored some of the basic questions that have been raised by Stoney in his post. We need to get the facts out, and have a transparent procurement process. That does not mean a long process; it means that issues of flying characteristics, payload, range, speed, serviceability, parts, and affordability have to be considered before we make up our mind on what we are buying. It really does not matter which aircraft or combination of aircraft is procured, but you had better make sure that it will do the job, and be supportable, you cannot afford another Cormorant fleet. The CF cannot afford the “my mind is made up, don’t confuse me with facts” approach to procurement. Otherwise, we will get exactly what we asked for – just like we did with the Cormorant. Future generations of CF personnel will have to live with it, and with this procurement decision, for a hell of a long time.
I am currently self-employed, and while I have done some work for EADS, I have also worked for others who had questions about our current Air Mobility and SAR forces. My post was intended to provide some basic facts, not slanted to any one product, to raise the level of discussion a bit. Hopefully it came across that way.
My main interest remains the SAR community, and ensuring that they get the best new equipment that they can, recognizing that our track record in procurement has been pretty spotty. We were sold on the Cormorant, and supported the acquisition despite concerns over the tail rotor problems that the aircraft had since the beginning. We are paying for this today. Our seniors traded off military maintenance personnel in order to get the aircraft – only to find out that the serviceability of the new Cormorant was no better than that of the Labrador. The CF needs to make sure that they get the facts on the potential candidates prior to making a commitment, something that has not necessarily been done in the past.
I have done quite a bit of research on the contenders, not only for the FWSAR but also for the transport requirement. I began that research well before I left the military, and have continued it since. Suffice to say that glossy brochures from any aircraft manufacturer, or from anyone else with an axe to grind (including some from within DND), need to be carefully reviewed and pointed questions asked. Without slamming anyone, it appears that the procurement process to date has ignored some of the basic questions that have been raised by Stoney in his post. We need to get the facts out, and have a transparent procurement process. That does not mean a long process; it means that issues of flying characteristics, payload, range, speed, serviceability, parts, and affordability have to be considered before we make up our mind on what we are buying. It really does not matter which aircraft or combination of aircraft is procured, but you had better make sure that it will do the job, and be supportable, you cannot afford another Cormorant fleet. The CF cannot afford the “my mind is made up, don’t confuse me with facts” approach to procurement. Otherwise, we will get exactly what we asked for – just like we did with the Cormorant. Future generations of CF personnel will have to live with it, and with this procurement decision, for a hell of a long time.
I don't know that the C27 is the best medium tranport aircraft for Canada. I don't know that there is a "best" Aircraft for SAR in Canada. I know that if I could, I would take a pressurized Buffalo over either the c27 or the c295. That isn't even the best plane for Canada, just Western Canada. All I know, is that there will be a New FWSAR bird, and there will be new transport birds in the reasonable future. My limited aircrew experience shows me that unique aircraft lead to maintenance nightmares and loss of flight hours. IMO, the more streamlined we are, the simpiler ( is that a word?) easier logistically and for training. Stating the obvious, we need new planes now. Unfortunately, whatever decision gets made is a compromise, but a decision needs to be made."Dithering " is a disease rampant in the military procurement process. Take guidance from Hillier, and just decide. Procurement should not be done in isolation. We shouldn't buy 1 transport plane, one maritime patrol plane, 1 sar plane. We need a family of aircraft, interconnected, with continuity throughtout the training and supply chain. I think LMAAT is closer to offering that than EADS.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
If we want a Herc replacement on the cheap, there is another option, and it is from China 
:
Shaanxi Aircraft Industry (Group) Co. Ltd's Y-8F600
http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/airlift/y8f600.asp
The design is based off the Antonov AN-12 Cub, which is a Soviet copy of the C-130. This particular model is fitted with four P&W PB150B turboprop engines, and British Dodi all-composite six-blade R-408 propeller's. Has a glass cockpit as well. If we get this bird, it will definetely shock the Americans big time.
:Shaanxi Aircraft Industry (Group) Co. Ltd's Y-8F600
http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/airlift/y8f600.asp
The design is based off the Antonov AN-12 Cub, which is a Soviet copy of the C-130. This particular model is fitted with four P&W PB150B turboprop engines, and British Dodi all-composite six-blade R-408 propeller's. Has a glass cockpit as well. If we get this bird, it will definetely shock the Americans big time.
George Wallace
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 103
- Points
- 710
Armymatters
There is a lot more to making this decision, than looking up aircraft in a Magazine. Just a little info for you when it comes to Open Source Info like that; it is often not that accurate for Security Reasons. No Nation will permit the exact specs of their military hardware to go public. It is call National Defence, Official Secrets Act, Classified Materials, etc. for a reason.
I would highly doubt that the Canadian Forces would be purchasing any major piece of military hardware from a Non-Allied Nation.
There is a lot more to making this decision, than looking up aircraft in a Magazine. Just a little info for you when it comes to Open Source Info like that; it is often not that accurate for Security Reasons. No Nation will permit the exact specs of their military hardware to go public. It is call National Defence, Official Secrets Act, Classified Materials, etc. for a reason.
I would highly doubt that the Canadian Forces would be purchasing any major piece of military hardware from a Non-Allied Nation.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
I am well aware of that. However, what is of note is that normally, Chinese airplane manufacturers do not use or install Western avionics or western engines if the design is meant for the PLA. The particular model I mentioned is meant for export, with either civilian or military use abroad, hence Western avionics and engines.
Then again, the Chinese example of how they organize their strategic airlift may be of note. For example, officially all IL-76s belong to the China United Airline (CUA), a sort of a crown corporation in China. As such, the IL-76s are registered with the four digit civilian aircraft numbering (B-XXXX), and some of them are in the CUA colour scheme. The PLA regularly "charters" these jets for military usage, such as paratrooper drops, air drops, etc. When not in military service, these jets are made available for charter airlift commerically. In theory, in Canada, such aircraft (like the IL-76 or even a AN-124) can operate under the same scheme, where they are owned and registered by a Crown Corporation (let's call this company Canadian Heavy Airlift Limited, or CHA) under a civilian registration (C-FXXX or C-GXXX), but are regularly "chartered" by the Canadian Forces for work, such as airlifting troops, cargo, vehicles, etc, and while not on CF airlift "charters", they are made available for civilian outsided charter work, which helps pay for the costs of the airplanes, and if properly managed, can be a source of revenue for the government, which such revenues can be used for adding new or replacing/updating old equipment within the Crown Corporation. In theory, legally, this should be all clear and legit, the only problem will be getting a type license from Transport Canada (easily done with some of the airlifters such as the IL-76, as that jet is getting a global certification, and is currently being built to international standards), but that should not be much of a problem.
Then again, the Chinese example of how they organize their strategic airlift may be of note. For example, officially all IL-76s belong to the China United Airline (CUA), a sort of a crown corporation in China. As such, the IL-76s are registered with the four digit civilian aircraft numbering (B-XXXX), and some of them are in the CUA colour scheme. The PLA regularly "charters" these jets for military usage, such as paratrooper drops, air drops, etc. When not in military service, these jets are made available for charter airlift commerically. In theory, in Canada, such aircraft (like the IL-76 or even a AN-124) can operate under the same scheme, where they are owned and registered by a Crown Corporation (let's call this company Canadian Heavy Airlift Limited, or CHA) under a civilian registration (C-FXXX or C-GXXX), but are regularly "chartered" by the Canadian Forces for work, such as airlifting troops, cargo, vehicles, etc, and while not on CF airlift "charters", they are made available for civilian outsided charter work, which helps pay for the costs of the airplanes, and if properly managed, can be a source of revenue for the government, which such revenues can be used for adding new or replacing/updating old equipment within the Crown Corporation. In theory, legally, this should be all clear and legit, the only problem will be getting a type license from Transport Canada (easily done with some of the airlifters such as the IL-76, as that jet is getting a global certification, and is currently being built to international standards), but that should not be much of a problem.
- Reaction score
- 332
- Points
- 880
I have serious doubts of the Canadian Forces ever contemplating the idea of purchasing from the CHICOM - communists = bad guys.
Your idea of a Crown Heavy-Lift corporation has merit, and has been discussed on these means in the past. If such a venture were to go forth, why not C-17's or any other RO-RO military aircraft. If the savants at CASR DND 101 had their way, we would be picking up stock piled IL-76's and converting them to western avionics and engines - good thing that nobody important reads their "research".
If the newly minted government wants a strategic presence - we will require an airframe that is being used by other allied nations that are not half a world away. We will need access to someone's simulator (usually more expensive than the actual plane) and have a dedicated parts line and maintenance pool. If this means that the C-17 is the only choice, sobeit.
Your idea of a Crown Heavy-Lift corporation has merit, and has been discussed on these means in the past. If such a venture were to go forth, why not C-17's or any other RO-RO military aircraft. If the savants at CASR DND 101 had their way, we would be picking up stock piled IL-76's and converting them to western avionics and engines - good thing that nobody important reads their "research".
If the newly minted government wants a strategic presence - we will require an airframe that is being used by other allied nations that are not half a world away. We will need access to someone's simulator (usually more expensive than the actual plane) and have a dedicated parts line and maintenance pool. If this means that the C-17 is the only choice, sobeit.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
Zoomie said:
I had a look at the C-17, and the proposed BC-17X commerical variant just recently. The only thing I would have against a C-17 or a BC-17X proposal is due to costs. The C-17 was not designed to be a cheap plane to build or operate. It was designed to do a job and fuel costs were near the bottom of the list of priorities. The unit price for a BC-17X civilian variant is a little hard to stomach; around $175 million dollars US. Military variants have been quoted to be around a quarter of a billion dollars US. Even the US Military is finding the costs of the C-17 hard to stomach; early build airframes apparantly are getting very clapped out and their airframe life span has been cut short due to the abuse the airframes have gone through, forcing the US Military to search for ways to either rebuild the airframes or purchase new airframes to replace these airframes.
In our theoretical Crown Corporation, a purchase of 4 An-124 Ruslan's would be appropriate. However, there are roadblocks to new airframes, as production halted in 2004 due to lack of parts to assemble new airframes. Apparantly, new build An-124's will cost around $70 to $80 million, if the specifications do not change. However, the price will inflate to rougly $100 million after modernization of the aircraft (building aircraft of 1992 standard does not make sense, so the drawings have to be digitized for higher manufacturing efficiency, and avionics must be newer as well) and designing new engines, according to some officials at Volga-Dnepr, if the airframe uses a reworked Russian engine. Volga-Dnepr also did calculations that reveal it will still be profitable if the airframe costs rises to $250 to $270 million each, if they are forced to use Western engines.
In short, I am left scratching my head as to how to acquire strategic lift capablities. All options for strategic lift is expensive, some even prohibitively expensive. Strategic airlifters can get us there faster, but carry less, while sealifters, while carrying a lot more, gets there much slower. Both options are being considered by the DND, but costs are the main issues.
Leasing the aircraft may be cheap, getting when we wanted is difficult. Assured lease arrangements are understandably expensive. A 2002 DND briefing note stated that, based on the CF's future strategic airlift needs, a charter company would have to guarantee access to two An-124s within 48 hours of a request, and two more within seven days. These aircraft would have to be available for approximately 1,000 flying hours per year. Such an arrangement would cost approximately $8.5 billion over a 30-year period ($280-million annually) - which means that cost wise, it is the same as purchasing 12 A400M or six C-17 aircraft.
- Reaction score
- 16,898
- Points
- 1,010
Wow, for a guy who has never spent anytime in the Air Force, you sure are alot more sure of the "answer" than I am...
I am pretty sure, however, that the "answer" does not involve buying used Russian or Chinese aircraft...
I am pretty sure, however, that the "answer" does not involve buying used Russian or Chinese aircraft...
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
SeaKingTacco said:
In any way we deal with this lack of strategic lift, there will always be an issue. Either the airplane's availability for purchase is iffy, or it is available, just extremely expensive. We are screwed either way if something goes horribly wrong.
- Reaction score
- 16,898
- Points
- 1,010
Welcome to life- where "perfect" decisions are the enemy of "good enough".
(Source: Australian Department of Defence; issued March 3, 2006)
I am pleased to announce that the Australian Government will acquire up to four new Boeing C-17 Globemaster III aircraft and associated equipment to provide the Australian Defence Force (ADF) with a heavy airlift capability.
The Government has selected the C-17 by for its ability to meet the needs of the ADF over the next 30 years.
This is the only aircraft currently in production which has a proven capability to meet ADF operational commitments, in Australia, the region and globally. The C-17 has four times the carrying capacity of the RAAF C-130 Hercules.
The C-17 aircraft has the load capacity and range that will allow the ADF to rapidly deploy troops, combat vehicles, heavy equipment and helicopters. This includes the M1A1 Abrams Tank, as well as Black Hawk, Sea Hawk, and Chinook helicopters. Each C-17 has the capacity to transport five Bushmaster Infantry Vehicles, or three Tiger helicopters.
The fleet of up to four aircraft will give Australia a new Responsive Global AirLift (RGA) capability, significantly enhancing the ADF's ability to support national and international operations, and major disaster rescue and relief efforts.
As the C-17 aircraft is currently in production, it is possible for the first aircraft to be delivered later this year with the balance of the fleet to be delivered by mid 2008. This will give the ADF the Responsive Global Airlift operating capability it needs within a short time-frame.
Acquisition of the C-17 will also provide significant opportunity for our aerospace industry with Boeing proposing an Australian Industry Capability program valued at $345m over the life of the aircraft.
I had the pleasure of inspecting a United States Air Force C-17 today with my colleague, the Member for Macquarie, Mr Kerry Bartlett, at Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) Base Richmond.
This investment of up to $2 billion is in addition to the Howard Government's commitment of $28.5 billion in increased spending on defence capability over the 10-year period to 2010, building on the 2000 White Paper to increase Defence funding by three per cent annually, in real terms, until 2010/11.
-ends-
I wonder if the Australian decision to purchase C-17's will have any influence on future airlift purchases by DND...
I am pleased to announce that the Australian Government will acquire up to four new Boeing C-17 Globemaster III aircraft and associated equipment to provide the Australian Defence Force (ADF) with a heavy airlift capability.
The Government has selected the C-17 by for its ability to meet the needs of the ADF over the next 30 years.
This is the only aircraft currently in production which has a proven capability to meet ADF operational commitments, in Australia, the region and globally. The C-17 has four times the carrying capacity of the RAAF C-130 Hercules.
The C-17 aircraft has the load capacity and range that will allow the ADF to rapidly deploy troops, combat vehicles, heavy equipment and helicopters. This includes the M1A1 Abrams Tank, as well as Black Hawk, Sea Hawk, and Chinook helicopters. Each C-17 has the capacity to transport five Bushmaster Infantry Vehicles, or three Tiger helicopters.
The fleet of up to four aircraft will give Australia a new Responsive Global AirLift (RGA) capability, significantly enhancing the ADF's ability to support national and international operations, and major disaster rescue and relief efforts.
As the C-17 aircraft is currently in production, it is possible for the first aircraft to be delivered later this year with the balance of the fleet to be delivered by mid 2008. This will give the ADF the Responsive Global Airlift operating capability it needs within a short time-frame.
Acquisition of the C-17 will also provide significant opportunity for our aerospace industry with Boeing proposing an Australian Industry Capability program valued at $345m over the life of the aircraft.
I had the pleasure of inspecting a United States Air Force C-17 today with my colleague, the Member for Macquarie, Mr Kerry Bartlett, at Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) Base Richmond.
This investment of up to $2 billion is in addition to the Howard Government's commitment of $28.5 billion in increased spending on defence capability over the 10-year period to 2010, building on the 2000 White Paper to increase Defence funding by three per cent annually, in real terms, until 2010/11.
-ends-
I wonder if the Australian decision to purchase C-17's will have any influence on future airlift purchases by DND...
Similar threads
