Strategic vs. Tactical Airlift - What balance do we need? (from: Military wins no matter what after election)
- Thread starter AoD71
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 16,898
- Points
- 1,010
Sooooo... a country the size of Canada could never afford C-17s, eh? 
McG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 3,072
- Points
- 1,160
Is the Cub not visibly smaller than a CC-130?Armymatters said: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. The design is based off the Antonov AN-12 Cub, which is a Soviet copy of the C-130.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Australia to Spend Up to $1.5 Bn on 4 C-17s (updated)
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2006/03/australia-to-spend-up-to-15-bn-on-4-c17s-updated/index.php
The Australian government has just announced that the Australian Defence Forces will acquire up to 4 new Boeing C-17 Globemaster III strategic airlift planes and associated equipment for A$ 2 billion ($1.49 billion at today's conversion). The first aircraft will be delivered to Australia later in 2006, with the balance of the fleet to be delivered by mid 2008.
The C-17 was in competition with the Airbus A400M to become Australia's next-generation transport aircraft
While the A400M's flyaway price tag of USD$ 100 million or so would be approximately half that of a C-17 in return for about half the payload and two-thirds of the cargo volume, M1 tanks would not be transportable in an A400M, and the Long Beach Press-Telegram quotes industry observers who said it was the C-17's ability to tote Australia's M1 Abrams tanks and CH-47 Chinook helicopters that won over the Australian government. As a secondary consideration, the A400M lacks even a test model and would not have been available sooner than 2009 at the very earliest.
Maximum payload capacity of the C-17 is 170,900 lb (77,500 kg), and its maximum gross takeoff weight is 585,000 lb (265,350 kg). With a payload of 160,000 lb (72,600 kg) and an initial cruise altitude of 28,000 ft (8,500 m), the C-17 has an unrefueled range of 2,800 nautical miles (5,200 km). The C-17 is designed to operate from runways as short as 3,000 ft (900 m) and as narrow as 90 ft (27 m). In addition, the C-17 can operate out of unpaved, unimproved runways (although this is rarely done due to the increased possibility of damage to the aircraft). The thrust reversers can be used to back the aircraft and reverse direction on narrow taxiways using a three-point (or in some cases, multi-point) turn maneuver.
The C-17 is designed to airdrop up to 102 paratroopers and equipment. In Australian terms, it ca also can carry one 60-ton M1 Abrams tank, as well as loads ranging from 5 Bushmaster infantry vehicles to 3 Tiger reconnaissance/attack helicopters.
Australia now joins the USA and Britain as operators of the C-17 Globemaster III. The ministerial release did not specify, but its wording and known cost figures for the C-17 suggest that the $372.5 million per aircraft amount represents unit procurement cost. If so, this would include the aircraft purchase price plus procurement costs, initial spare parts, maintenance equipment, basing alternations, technical data et. al.
The timing is fortuitous for Boeing, as C-17 production is expected to shut down in 2008 and each new C-17 aircraft ordered reportedly extends Boeing's C-17 line by 3 weeks. Nevertheless, as Copley News Service explains, Boeing is slightly ahead of schedule and will be able to deliver the additional four aircraft without affecting its timelines for closure. The US Air Force has listed obtaining 7 more C-17s as its top unfunded requirement, however, and this could buy enough time to extend C-17 production into early 2009 while Boeing hunts for more orders.
Many of these deals also come with maintenance support provisions, and the C-17 comes with an established model in the C-17 Sustainment Partnership program.
The more I think about it the more it seems to make sense for Canada...We may even be able to spin some political favours from Boeing, back our way for a price of say 4xC-17.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2006/03/australia-to-spend-up-to-15-bn-on-4-c17s-updated/index.php
The Australian government has just announced that the Australian Defence Forces will acquire up to 4 new Boeing C-17 Globemaster III strategic airlift planes and associated equipment for A$ 2 billion ($1.49 billion at today's conversion). The first aircraft will be delivered to Australia later in 2006, with the balance of the fleet to be delivered by mid 2008.
The C-17 was in competition with the Airbus A400M to become Australia's next-generation transport aircraft
While the A400M's flyaway price tag of USD$ 100 million or so would be approximately half that of a C-17 in return for about half the payload and two-thirds of the cargo volume, M1 tanks would not be transportable in an A400M, and the Long Beach Press-Telegram quotes industry observers who said it was the C-17's ability to tote Australia's M1 Abrams tanks and CH-47 Chinook helicopters that won over the Australian government. As a secondary consideration, the A400M lacks even a test model and would not have been available sooner than 2009 at the very earliest.
Maximum payload capacity of the C-17 is 170,900 lb (77,500 kg), and its maximum gross takeoff weight is 585,000 lb (265,350 kg). With a payload of 160,000 lb (72,600 kg) and an initial cruise altitude of 28,000 ft (8,500 m), the C-17 has an unrefueled range of 2,800 nautical miles (5,200 km). The C-17 is designed to operate from runways as short as 3,000 ft (900 m) and as narrow as 90 ft (27 m). In addition, the C-17 can operate out of unpaved, unimproved runways (although this is rarely done due to the increased possibility of damage to the aircraft). The thrust reversers can be used to back the aircraft and reverse direction on narrow taxiways using a three-point (or in some cases, multi-point) turn maneuver.
The C-17 is designed to airdrop up to 102 paratroopers and equipment. In Australian terms, it ca also can carry one 60-ton M1 Abrams tank, as well as loads ranging from 5 Bushmaster infantry vehicles to 3 Tiger reconnaissance/attack helicopters.
Australia now joins the USA and Britain as operators of the C-17 Globemaster III. The ministerial release did not specify, but its wording and known cost figures for the C-17 suggest that the $372.5 million per aircraft amount represents unit procurement cost. If so, this would include the aircraft purchase price plus procurement costs, initial spare parts, maintenance equipment, basing alternations, technical data et. al.
The timing is fortuitous for Boeing, as C-17 production is expected to shut down in 2008 and each new C-17 aircraft ordered reportedly extends Boeing's C-17 line by 3 weeks. Nevertheless, as Copley News Service explains, Boeing is slightly ahead of schedule and will be able to deliver the additional four aircraft without affecting its timelines for closure. The US Air Force has listed obtaining 7 more C-17s as its top unfunded requirement, however, and this could buy enough time to extend C-17 production into early 2009 while Boeing hunts for more orders.
Many of these deals also come with maintenance support provisions, and the C-17 comes with an established model in the C-17 Sustainment Partnership program.
The more I think about it the more it seems to make sense for Canada...We may even be able to spin some political favours from Boeing, back our way for a price of say 4xC-17.
S
Skaha
Guest
the C17 isn't really expensive . . at $250 million each it sounds expensive but to put that number into perpspective, Oprah just paid over $ 50 Million for a Bombardier Executive Jet.
Go price a 747, 777, A340 or A380.
Planes cost big bucks
The C17 is worth every penny.
No more "saving" money buying militarized civvy kit or second hand submarines.
Go price a 747, 777, A340 or A380.
Planes cost big bucks
The C17 is worth every penny.
No more "saving" money buying militarized civvy kit or second hand submarines.
Similar threads
