ADF to buy 4 C-17's.

[Supe]

source (http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/NelsonMintpl.cfm?CurrentId=5449)

NEW HEAVY AIRLIFT CAPABILITY FOR THE ROYAL AUSTRALIAN AIR FORCE

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.

Images of the aircraft can be accessed at:
http://www.defence.gov.au/media/download/2006/Mar/index.cfm



This will be a tremendous boost to ADF capabilities. It means Australia won't have to contract civillian lifters or Brit/U.S Globemasters for moving ADF personnel/materiel around. It also allows Australia to increase its share of the burden in terms of coalition duties Howard signed on to and alliance obligations. The purchase of the C-17's offers much more flexibility to the Government in how and when it deploys its resources.

[Lt-Col A. Tack]

Really great news! A fine aircraft. Always a pleasure to do business with the Australians :)

[Bugalugs]

ta.
1234567890

[digrar]

This purchase should have happend years ago, good to see it coming in.

[BoyElroy]

Great news! Finally, the ADF gets some serious lift capability. All the better to carry their new Abrams.

[liberation]

"Coalition duties and alliance obligations". Australia has seen a huge trade deficit with the US emerge since it signed a free trade deal with Washington. I wonder what Australia is really getting out of this alliance.

I hope these highly capable Globemasters will improve the performance of the ADF, and not be used to enhance America's power projection capabilities at the expense of Australian domestic defense.

[Supe]

All the better to carry their new Abrams.

That's what ships are for. Ferrying around Abrams on a plane is not very practical. I don't imagine Australian M1A1's will be deployed overseas anyway.


BTW: According to a person who attended the briefing on the C17 purchase, the RAAF's 12 C-130H's "will gradually be drawn down to six airframes from late next year. No refurbishment is planned for the remaining six, so they probably have about five years of airframe life left in them. The possibility of acquiring additional Js was mentioned, although this will likely be down the track a little, and the current Js will have their roles expanded the remaining 10-15% to include Special Forces support work. cite (http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=55137&postcount=133)"

Grains of salt need apply when going by forum 'predictions' but I won't dismiss it either.

[ZaakM433]

They mean 400 right?







4? whats the point?

[Bugalugs]

They mean 400 right?







4? whats the point?

its a massive jump in capability for a force our size.
400 is probably more than the US has!

[Lt-Col A. Tack]

They mean 400 right?
4? whats the point?

You can still do a lot of things with even a few of these aircraft. They're fairly pricey.

IIRC, Britain also only ordered (sorry, leased) 4 as well, but agreed to keep up with the upgrades so that in the event they chose not to purchase they would be suitable for the US.

[Moledet]

I remember seeing it taxing on a runway in Ben Gurion airport, the noise it made and it's size were impressive.
But I also saw the Russian one (forgot the name), it's much bigger.

[gsm]

this is awesome news!

a great moment for the oz defence force!

[usm2b]

rofl, when I read the title, I thought Afghani Defense Force

[BoyElroy]

That's what ships are for. Ferrying around Abrams on a plane is not very practical. I don't imagine Australian M1A1's will be deployed overseas anyway.




Didn't the US fly in something like a dozen M1's on C-17's into northern Iraq back in 2003? IIRC, it was to back up some spec. ops./light forces running operations in the area.

[Supe]

I hope these highly capable Globemasters will improve the performance of the ADF, and not be used to enhance America's power projection capabilities at the expense of Australian domestic defense.

4 RAAF C-17's vs USAF 118 C-17's plus 126 C5 Galaxy and couple hundred odd Hercs. (stats source (http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=92)) I've got a hunch the Americans will manage.

Maintaining good relationship with the Americans enhances Australian 'domestic security'. The Cold War nuke umbrella provided by the Americans mean't that Australia didn't develop its own nuclear weapons; a distinct possibility during the height of tensions between Australia and Indonesia. (Australia's purchase of F-111's was based on the premise it would be used as a nuke bomb truck). Though the Cold War has long passed, the world has not become more secure and emerging powers such as China (possibly India) threaten to change the balance. From a regional perspective, there's always the possibility for Indonesia to fragment - the situation in Irian Jaya (West Papua), Aceh could turn into another East Timor scenario; or territorial disputes between Malaysia and Indonesia could escalate into a regional conflict.

Australian Defence capabilites have been massively improved under Howard and and as a consequence so has 'Australian domestic security'. You may not like him and his policies, but he has somewhat rectifed the many shortcomings and head in sand attitude that prevailed after the Vietnam war. The doctrine that was soley Defence of Australia now incorporates 'and interests'. This means we need to be more engaged in the world, rather than think isolation protects us.

That said, I don't think Australia should automatically sign up to anything in order to maintain an alliance that provides security, without establishing that it is in Australia's interest and whether it is moral.

@BoyElroy:

I wouldn't be surprised if you guys did. I'm just saying that in the Australian context, it's not very likely.

[marktigger]

good news I thought that the RAF were taking over the C17's at the end of the lease period and were to purchase another 1. Really thy could do with the other 1 and 5 more.

[catalyst]

Great news for all of the ADF. Cant see this purchase and being a bad one or being in the wrong direction.

[Diz]

You must all remember.. Our troop commitmant to operations is normally on the small side compared to others and 4 of these planes could probably do it easly in 2-3 trips if that.

NOTE: i have no military experience

[AmericanImperialist]

rofl, when I read the title, I thought Afghani Defense Force
me too and I misread it as C-47 rofl

[JVeld]

I remember seeing it taxing on a runway in Ben Gurion airport, the noise it made and it's size were impressive.
But I also saw the Russian one (forgot the name), it's much bigger.
Antonov-124 Condor ???? or the colossal An-225

[Maskirovka]

Antonov-124 Condor ???? or the colossal An-225

I´m surprised no one orders the commonly used An-124 Condor. It can load almost twice as much as the Globemaster and with Rolls-Royce engines and western avionics I´m shure there would be no problem introducing it into a western airforce.

The Globemaster was designed to be able to take off and land at small airfields, but IIRC that has not proven feasable in real life. When it comes to landing/taking off performance there´s not at all that much that speaks in the favour of C-17 compared to the new versions of the Condor.

I suppose the An-124 is pretty much cheaper aswell, since it is of eastern origin.

[guest]

I´m surprised no one orders the commonly used An-124 Condor. It can load almost twice as much as the Globemaster and with Rolls-Royce engines and western avionics I´m shure there would be no problem introducing it into a western airforce.

The Globemaster was designed to be able to take off and land at small airfields, but IIRC that has not proven feasable in real life. When it comes to landing/taking off performance there´s not at all that much that speaks in the favour of C-17 compared to the new versions of the Condor.

I suppose the An-124 is pretty much cheaper aswell, since it is of eastern origin.


I wish you would do more and read less.

C17 is excellent for short, rough airstrips.. It's what it was designed for.

It certainly has better performance in that area than the Condor

Unless of course, you can cite some RELIABLE sources to back your claim.

[JVeld]

I´m surprised no one orders the commonly used An-124 Condor. It can load almost twice as much as the Globemaster and with Rolls-Royce engines and western avionics I´m shure there would be no problem introducing it into a western airforce.

The Globemaster was designed to be able to take off and land at small airfields, but IIRC that has not proven feasable in real life. When it comes to landing/taking off performance there´s not at all that much that speaks in the favour of C-17 compared to the new versions of the Condor.

I suppose the An-124 is pretty much cheaper aswell, since it is of eastern origin.
X2 .....much larger payload ! what is funny to me is that many times we have leased An-124s from Russian companies to do our heavy lifting in Afghanistan and places like that...we should buy a few and upgrade its avionics !
The An-124 like all Russian aircraft is pretty rugged and suitable to land pretty much in any airstrip large enough to acomodate it ....

[Maskirovka]

I wish you would do more and read less.

C17 is excellent for short, rough airstrips.. It's what it was designed for.

It certainly has better performance in that area than the Condor

Unless of course, you can cite some RELIABLE sources to back your claim.

I´m not following you? Do what?

It´s just what I remember at the top of my head from many sources that the experiences with C-17 and short, rough airstrips just isn´t that a good idea as it first was thought and is therefore selldom practised. Don´t know know why that is or if it´s true. If it isn´t, so what? Perhaps experiences has showed that there´s no need to use short, rough airstrips and that you most of the time have a perfectly good fullength airstrip nearby you can use?

I said the C-17 have better performace in that area then the Condor, but thats no wonder when it´s a smaller aircraft who was designed for just that.
Despite that I would chose the Condor because of it´s loading capacity and probably much cheaper price.

[Supe]

It would be highly unlikely the Australian Gov would purchase Russian aircraft for defence purposes. Apparently it can be a pain in the arse dealing with Russian companies on service contracts and in obtaining spare parts. That's a big negative against the Condor. U.S and Euro enterprises, operate large maintenance facilities in Australia (in the C-17's case, Boeing) for defence and commercial purposes, reducing need for investment in infrastructure costs. Secondly, the USAF operate large numbers of C-17's so spare parts and expertise won't be in short supply and in emergencies, RAAF could run off American logistics in places where both nations are operating. Afghanistan for example.

Cheap unit price means little if aircraft are unserviceable due to unreliable support contractors and lack of spare parts. These days, through life costs are factored in when buying big ticket items like the C-17's.

Quote from the ministerial release:


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.

[usm2b]

I'll tell you why we use the C-17. Cause we are American, and we use American sh*t. That's like saying that the Air Force should replace the f-15 with the Mig-29. Oh, and another reason...I don't like planes with a million and 1 wheels. , and I don't know the size difference, but it looks like a C-5 Galaxy.

[catalyst]

usm2b.....the we are American and should use American maybe fine for Americans. but as a Australian....if we cant make it better (and I support all available means to produce our own gear) then we should find the 2nd best option abroad. If that means we buy Mig-29s to protect my family.....then great....if we buy C-17s then great.....

but being patriotic in this department seems to be a little odd for me.....what do others think? Go for the best equipment we can/afford or just buy from allies?

[ed316]

It's best if you use the same thing as your allies use. Logistics dictates this. Do you want to wait to get parts from somehwere else or from your ally that more then likely has what you need?

[Nugget]

yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyy!!! me so happy anyone know the exact date this beauty will be arriving?

[catalyst]

I understand logistics.....is probally the key factor in a 30yr thru life purchase....

but do you feel cheated if we get these C-17s for its lift capability when other aircraft and some which are alot cheaper (about 1500% i have heard) could be bought?

[ed316]

Cheaper doesn't always means better. Oz won't buy Russian. Reality.

[catalyst]

Why not? We are happy to use it commercially! Thats my point....

[ed316]

Isn't Quantas a government own company?

[gaz]

Isn't Quantas a government own company?

They were but were privatised in the mid-nineties I believe.

[catalyst]

but still the official government airline.....

[CouchCommando]

FYI Antonov is Ukranian not Russian.

[Resurrection]

Wow nice! :) We're also looking into getting some strategic transport capability.

[Ballistic]

usm2b.....the we are American and should use American maybe fine for Americans. but as a Australian....if we cant make it better (and I support all available means to produce our own gear) then we should find the 2nd best option abroad. If that means we buy Mig-29s to protect my family.....then great....if we buy C-17s then great.....

but being patriotic in this department seems to be a little odd for me.....what do others think? Go for the best equipment we can/afford or just buy from allies?

Well if you want to throw interoperability out of the window then fine, go for it.

In my opinion, buying from allies is better even though the cost might be more. Better through life support, can use the same assets while on operations so on so forth. Buying cheaper is not always a better option

[catalyst]

http://www.sfu.ca/casr/id-strategicair.htm

This article is very good....what do others think?

[ed316]

What's the track record on the Condor compare to the C-17.

Best to buy from an ally, it keeps your gear and his on the same level.

[Bugalugs]

less chance of copping friendly fire


*dons asbestos undies for incoming flamewar*

[Resurrection]

http://www.sfu.ca/casr/id-strategicair.htm

This article is very good....what do others think?
Wow, never knew the An-124 was that big. Are those comparisons to scale?

[Resurrection]

What's the track record on the Condor compare to the C-17.

Best to buy from an ally, it keeps your gear and his on the same level.

What specifically do you mean by track record? How many crashes each aircraft was involved in?

[ed316]

What specifically do you mean by track record? How many crashes each aircraft was involved in?

More or less. Also it's uptempo combat record.

[Resurrection]

No idea. I could find some statistics on crashes, but that wouldn't really say much as I don't think the An-124 has been used as extensively as the C-17 has during the recent years.

[CyberSpec]

Why not? We are happy to use it commercially! Thats my point....

Russian stuff will never see ADF service...period!

The reasons why have already been mentioned already, political, logistics...

The main thrust of current ADF upgrades is to practically make them a branch of the US Forces....the C-17 is part of that process.

The C-17 is a good aircraft, but if they only get 4 of them, then they shouldn't reduce the number of Hercs

[ed316]

No idea. I could find some statistics on crashes, but that wouldn't really say much as I don't think the An-124 has been used as extensively as the C-17 has during the recent years.

I'll google it. Thanx anyways.

[Bugalugs]

Russian stuff will never see ADF service...period!

The reasons why have already been mentioned already, political, logistics...

The main thrust of current ADF upgrades is to practically make them a branch of the US Forces....the C-17 is part of that process.

The C-17 is a good aircraft, but if they only get 4 of them, then they shouldn't reduce the number of Hercs

i dont think there reducing them, just......not doing expensive upgrades to keep them in the air

theyre looking at getting more j models anyway

[Resurrection]

theyre looking at getting more j models anyway

Were they looking at that before or after this decision?

[Bugalugs]

Were they looking at that before or after this decision?
i think i heard about it a while back. could be wrong

[Ballistic]

Russian stuff will never see ADF service...period!

The reasons why have already been mentioned already, political, logistics...

The main thrust of current ADF upgrades is to practically make them a branch of the US Forces....the C-17 is part of that process.

The C-17 is a good aircraft, but if they only get 4 of them, then they shouldn't reduce the number of Hercs

They are only reducing the number of C-130H from 12 to 6. The rest of the C-130 fleet is here to stay from all reports.

[catalyst]

Russian stuff will never see ADF service...period!

i would love to see some good Ruskie gear in ADF service....

[moughoun]

i would love to see some good Ruskie gear in ADF service.... no you wouldn't, thier engines have shorter life span's, the spare' supply is often haphazard, and you would be incompatible with most US/NATO equipment

[Greek soldier]

no you wouldn't, thier engines have shorter life span's, the spare' supply is often haphazard, and you would be incompatible with most US/NATO equipment

1) UK was thinking of acquiring the An-124 with Rolls-ROyce engines ;)
2) UK again was thinking of putting compatible electronics ;)
3) The Beriev Be-200 and the Illyushin Il-96 have Western engines and electronics ;)

[Supe]

1) UK was thinking of acquiring the An-124 with Rolls-ROyce engines ;)
2) UK again was thinking of putting compatible electronics ;)
3) The Beriev Be-200 and the Illyushin Il-96 have Western engines and electronics ;)

Unsubstantiated claims till you prove otherwise. In other words - post sources.

[catalyst]

has been posted by myself earlier in the thread....

[Greek soldier]

1) http://www.airsider.net/files/2003/0903/003/volga_dnepr.htm
(There was also an article in Flight International back in 1998...)


An-124-100M. The aircraft will have a new avionics suite supplied by Honeywell of the USA and Aviapribor and Leninets of Russia.

http://www.aerospace-technology.com/projects/antonov/



Rolls-Royce Proposes PFI-based Partnership for Short-Term Airlift Needs

The specification of the upgraded AN-124 at the heart of Air Foyle's bid for STSA includes RB211-524H-T engines, which will provide improved thrust, durability and operating costs. For the C-17, the RB211-535E4 would provide significant weight, durability and cost advantages. The -535 is the leading powerplant in its class and has been chosen by over 80 per cent of commercial operators.

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?prod=218&session=dae.18019541.1141484338.RAmrMsOa9dUAABvpSxw&modele=jdc_1

3) Beriev Be-200
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beriev_Be-200


Power: two 7500 kgf (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kgf) (73.5 kN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilonewton)) Progress D-436TP engines (with options of BMW-Rolls-Royce Br-715-53 turbofan or Allison GMA-2100 turbofan)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beriev_Be-200



The cockpit accommodates two flight crew. The aircraft is equipped with an ARIA-200 digital flight and navigation system developed by Honeywell with the Moscow Research Institute of Aircraft Equipment. The flight deck is fitted with six 152mm x 203mm (6in x 8in) liquid crystal displays and a Honeywell Electronic Flight and Information System (EFIS).
Ilyioushin Il-96


http://www.aerospace-technology.com/projects/beriev_be-200/

Il-96 M/T



This is a stretched variant of the Il-96-300. It features a 10 m (30 ft) fuselage stretch, is 15 tonnes (33,000 lb) heavier, is fitted with Western-style avionics, and is powered by four Pratt & Whitney PW2337 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_%26_Whitney_PW2000) engines with a thrust rating of 37,000 lbf (165 kN). Range with 312 passengers in a three-class configuration or 92 tonne (203,000 lb) payload is about 5,600 nautical miles (10,400 km). This turned it into a true—but vastly more capable—Il-86 successor. The Il-96M/T is broadly comparable with the Airbus A330-300 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A330) and Boeing 777-200A (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_777), but is much cheaper. Development on the M/T variant stalled when the US Export-Import Bank (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export-Import_Bank_of_the_United_States) suspended talks on financing the engines and avionics, due to Russia's economic problems [2] (http://news.airwise.com/stories/99/07/933085110.html).
The Il-96M/T dispenses the flight engineer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_engineer), making it a two-crewmember airliner.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Il-96

At least there are sources to back it up...

[Resurrection]

Are glass cockpits available for potential An-124 customers? All those analog instruments make me sick. The "Soviet blue" cockpit doesn't exactly make things any better either.

[Greek soldier]

Read my post Resurrection. The An-124-100 is offered with Honeywell avionics ;)

[Resurrection]

Could've been analog Honeywell instruments for all I know.

[Greek soldier]

Honeywell with analog instruments????? It's not the 1970's... ;)

[Resurrection]

Tell that to the Russians lol.

[Greek soldier]

Well, the Ruskies have also fitted Sextant Avionique (now THALES) avionics on the Sukhoj Su-37-711 ;)

http://img92.imageshack.us/img92/9417/su37016yd.th.jpg (http://img92.imageshack.us/my.php?image=su37016yd.jpg)

Credits to: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/su-37.htm

[jerka71_1]

http://img371.imageshack.us/img371/7269/su3723ol.jpg
Su-37

[Resurrection]

What are the physical differences between the An-124 and the An-124-100? And what would be a wiser choice for let's say the RAAF or SwAF (hypothetically)?

[Greek soldier]

An-124-100. Because of these:


A new version, the An-124-100M, has been developed by Aviastar. The aircraft payload has been increased from 120t to 150t, the take-off weight increased from 392t to 420t and the flight range with 120t cargo increased from 4,750km to 6,500km. The crew has been reduced to four. A digital antiskid braking system has been fitted with monographite wheel brake disks. The aircraft will have a new avionics suite supplied by Honeywell of the USA and Aviapribor and Leninets of Russia.

http://www.aerospace-technology.com/projects/antonov/

[Resurrection]

Thanks. Is the An-124-100M a commercial variant?

[Noob Brit]

Wow, never knew the An-124 was that big. Are those comparisons to scale?

Looks like it. One of the (many) reasons the AN-124 fell foul of a British buy was ironically it's size. It's limited to the number of airfields it can use around the world and often the presence of one AN-124 will close the airfield to other aircraft.

From Hansard..
One must also have regard to the size of the airfield where particular aircraft may land, and the number of times that it may be necessary to fly an aircraft into and out of an airfield. Sometimes, as we found in practice, the very large aircraft to which the hon. Gentleman refers by implication cannot fly into the airfield, and if they do fly into a particular airfield, it is closed for a number of hours before the next aircraft can arrive. A balance must be struck between the size and physical capability of the aircraft in question, and the number of occasions on which it is necessary to fly in aircraft

An old issue of Air Forces Monthly touched on this too. From memory I think it was the Gulf War build up at Rhein Main. The C-17s were able to achieve more than the larger C-5s because they could be turned around much quicker and took up far less ramp space (the ability to turn in it's own length and reverse comes in handy).

You can't really compare the C-17 and AN-124. Both are strategic airlifters but only the C-17 has the tactical ability of a C-130. In a perfect world, you'd have both aircraft.

[Ballistic]

i would love to see some good Ruskie gear in ADF service....

:roll: Thank fark that will never happen.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Australian Defence capabilites have been massively improved under Howard
That said, I don't think Australia should automatically sign up to anything in order to maintain an alliance that provides security, without establishing that it is in Australia's interest and whether it is moral.



Should I laugh now or later?

Last time I looked there has been no significant capability upgrades to the ADF that has been Liberal Party policy. So far the LIBS have only purchased 59 tanks and pumped in money for the JSF.

Everything else was put in place by the previous ALP government.

But getting some c-17's is a good decision and add much needed mobility to the ADF

[Maskirovka]

no you wouldn't, thier engines have shorter life span's, the spare' supply is often haphazard, and you would be incompatible with most US/NATO equipment

I have never heard that their engines would have shorter life spans. In my biased world I´ve always considered eastern engines as more noisy, more polluting and more fuel consuming. If that´s true or not does´nt matter since Antonov has a version with Rolls-Royce engines.

The spare´s supply and logistic would´nt be a problem I guess since the Condor is in service with military and civilian users all over the world and I have never heard any complaints of unrelibiality or problems getting support from Ukraine. Heck, all western airforces (mostly US) constantly leases Condors from civilian contractors, and as far as I know they have worked perfectly fine.

About that incompatible issue with NATO. You don´t think a western buyer would fix that? And Antonov offers a version with avionics made by Honeywell, USA, could´nt be more western and NATO-friendly than that. Remember were just talking about a few cargofreighters that would transport things from point A to point B, nothing fancy like an entire system of advanced Su-35 fighters...

[sp2c]

time to buy some shares in Boeing?


'Defence considers purchase of C-17 transportaircraft'n'

04-03-2006

DEN HAAG - The ministry of Defence is considering the purchase of a number of Boeing C-17 III's, according to sources in the Hague. The four engined cargo aircraft would significantly enhance the transportfleet of the Royal Netherlands Airforce. The purchase of such large transportaircraft fits in the shifting taskpackage of the Dutch armed forces.

The Dutch military is being deployed in far away places more often. For this purpose a larger transportcapacity then the Netherlands has is needed. The transportfleeds has been enhanced with an extra DC-10 and additionally new Chinook helicopters have been ordered.

The C-17 can transport heavy material like helicopters and tanks, it has a loadcapacity of 77 tonnes. The type is allready in use with the American and Brittish airforces.
http://www.luchtvaartnieuws.nl/news/?id=12652


supposedly they are looking at buying 2 aircraft

[catalyst]

Last time I looked there has been no significant capability upgrades to the ADF that has been Liberal Party policy. So far the LIBS have only purchased 59 tanks and pumped in money for the JSF.

Everything else was put in place by the previous ALP government.

But getting some c-17's is a good decision and add much needed mobility to the ADF

Should we laugh now or later?

[Ballistic]

Should I laugh now or later?

Last time I looked there has been no significant capability upgrades to the ADF that has been Liberal Party policy. So far the LIBS have only purchased 59 tanks and pumped in money for the JSF.

Everything else was put in place by the previous ALP government.

But getting some c-17's is a good decision and add much needed mobility to the ADF

What a complete load of toss. Let me list some major changes:

HNA
LHD's on the short list
JSF
MRH90
Sea King replacement
C-17's
AWD's
Abrams
Bushmaster
Tiger ARH
M113AS3/4
Project Land 125 Soldier Enhancement Project
Replacement of 105mm and 155mm artillery with Mobile Artillery systems

So on so on so on.......

All this was put in place by the ALP ? Hmmmm

[Bugalugs]

You forgot the most important addition to the Regular Army by the Liberal Government........









http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/image.php?u=4848&dateline=1141070163<ME!!!

[catalyst]

min....come back?

[Bugalugs]

min....come back?
shaddap you

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Hmm

Collins, Anzacs, Manoora/Kanimbla, FFG's, F/A-18's,

Really it depends on which way you look at it. At the squad/unit level the Liberal Party does seem to be doing an ok job. I'm quite happy to admit that. However in the long term strategical view.

[catalyst]

SO that is a ..... well yes they are Lib decisions......but we did this over 10 yrs ago.....hehehehe.....wel love you min...but you gotta get out of the one party mind set.....the ALP isnt always better....

[Bugalugs]

Hmm

Collins, Anzacs, Manoora/Kanimbla, FFG's, F/A-18's,

Really it depends on which way you look at it. At the squad/unit level the Liberal Party does seem to be doing an ok job. I'm quite happy to admit that. However in the long term strategical view.

oh i thought catalyst was talking to me. thats my narcissm coming through

all of the above were necessary replacements for dead kit - hardly innovative or visionary......except for the Collins

[digrar]

ALPs strategic view was for the defence of Australia and has made it almost impossible for us to deploy overseas. Three Battalions in Timor, less than an hours flight time from Darwin almost broke us.

[Bugalugs]

ALPs strategic view was for the defence of Australia and has made it almost impossible for us to deploy overseas. Three Battalions in Timor, less than an hours flight time from Darwin almost broke us.

we never break!

we just....look surly for a few years

[catalyst]

shows how wrong we aimed.....do you think we should gt he HMAS Jervis Bay catamaran back?

[Michael RVR]

less chance of copping friendly fire


*dons asbestos undies for incoming flamewar*

Can't believe noone bit on this one. ;)

As digrar said, its good stuff but should have happened long ago.

I heard from someone that the C-17 buy happened because of the earthquakes in pakistan. Apparently the aid agencies went to the RAAF for lift, to which they said 'sorry we've got nothin that'll do it', and soon enough there was talk of buying C-17's around.

No doubt some agencies have some pretty decent government contacts.. but regardless, its a good thing no matter how it came about :)

[Ballistic]

You forgot the most important addition to the Regular Army by the Liberal Government........









http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/image.php?u=4848&dateline=1141070163<ME!!!

ROFL :D Sorry for the oversight mate, won't happen again. ;)

[Ballistic]

Hmm

Collins, Anzacs, Manoora/Kanimbla, FFG's, F/A-18's,

Really it depends on which way you look at it. At the squad/unit level the Liberal Party does seem to be doing an ok job. I'm quite happy to admit that. However in the long term strategical view.

In the long term strategic view, the ALP crippled the ADF. When we really needed to deploy en masse to Timor we couldn't, we neither had the manpower or the logistics to get our men there or support them. The ALP stiffled the ADF and most prominently the Army into a defensive posture, one which did not take into account overseas deployments.

Heaps of money has been spent on, as you have listed above, the Airforce and the Navy under the ALP, but not the Army. I still think more should be spent on the Army, but the Liberal Party has finally put an emphasis on them, which should have been done 10 - 15 years ago.

[gsm]

Heaps of money has been spent on, as you have listed above, the Airforce and the Navy under the ALP, but not the Army
dont know the figures, but the ALP would have easily spent (wasted) many 100's of millions on the Ready Reserve.:oops:

[catalyst]

The Reserves serves a intergral part of the defense of Australia (Kokoda Track for example). The ability of the ADF to expand in a full war will be boosted by a strong Reserve. This should not come at the direct expense of the Full Time Army.

[Michael RVR]

I think he's talking specifically of the Ready Reserve (where people from all round aus were flown to brisvegas for ex's after doing x period full time).

The libs have spent far more on defence than any other government, and that shows in the kit thats coming through the system.

Miniardu's just biased.. i think some liberal pollie refused to kiss him as a baby or something. ;)

[catalyst]

I have no issue with Miniardu's support of the ALP. I think they ahve done wonders for the Australian people, as the Libs have done. But being blind to the truth and unable to concede that your team arent the best causes serious problems. Both parties can list a great number of achievements. But none can claim them all!

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

ALPs strategic view was for the defence of Australia

And that is the most important factor for any nation. To ensure the defence of your nation 1st and foremost above any other military policy. Only once the defence of your nation is guarenteed should you embark on a extending the offensive capability.

As WW2 showed, relying on a foreign super power to provide for our security whilst enabling massive deployments overseas can have serious consequences.

Just think how usefull our RAAF squadrens and AIF divisions could of been in the defence of SE Asia.

[catalyst]

best defense is a offence....hehehe

[Ballistic]

And that is the most important factor for any nation. To ensure the defence of your nation 1st and foremost above any other military policy. Only once the defence of your nation is guarenteed should you embark on a extending the offensive capability.

As WW2 showed, relying on a foreign super power to provide for our security whilst enabling massive deployments overseas can have serious consequences.

Just think how usefull our RAAF squadrens and AIF divisions could of been in the defence of SE Asia.

The stability of neighbouring Pacific nations is also a priority. Without the ability to deploy forces overseas because of a single minded defence policy is insane. That was proven when we needed to go to Timor.

[Supe]

And that is the most important factor for any nation. To ensure the defence of your nation 1st and foremost above any other military policy. Only once the defence of your nation is guarenteed should you embark on a extending the offensive capability.


Defence of Australia is still number one priority but it now incorporates our interests in the region and in the world. The old doctrine going back to Dibbs whitepaper limited ADF to only being able defend Australia - and so the emphasis was on air and sea elements, leaving the Army to atrophy. Then East Timor happened. The Army and logistics were stretched thin and the Navy did not possess the capability of supporting the efforts because of lack of amphibious assets. We were lucky East Timor didn't end up in a full blown shooting match.

The lessons learned in East Timor and the subsequent events of 11th Sept, refocussed Gov policy and doctrine. We now have to monitor events in our region (and we have. eg: RAMSI Solomon Islands) because they now also pose a threat to our security. I am sure the Australian Gov is also monitoring the situation in West Papua - which is another potential East Timor.

The old Fortress Australia paradigm no longer exists. Australia has regional concerns to consider and needs capabilities to assist Gov actions. An additional layer of purpose for the ADF is its political utility in alliance maintenance operations. Australian Gov views the strategic environment as becoming dominated by an emerging China and the U.S. Since Australia is only a middling power and cannot operate alone, it needs to ensure its interests (and perhaps sovereignty) though a strong relationship with the U.S. There are also historical, cultural reasons for this. The Americans do expect Quid pro Quo.

The Australian Gov is walking a tight rope between our national interests and those of our key ally. Australian won't always side with the Americans on security issues but when it does, it must be fully committed. If the day comes and Australia needs to cash in and request help, then we have to hope they'll remember Australia was there, by her side.

[Bofors]

Well, it seems like the swedish defence forces have decided on two C-17 Globemaster to be in service from the year 2008. Now its just up to the government to approve the deal.

http://www.allehanda.se/lokalt/8769
(link in swedish)

[signatory]

Well, it seems like the swedish defence forces have decided on two C-17 Globemaster to be in service from the year 2008. Now its just up to the government to approve the deal.

http://www.allehanda.se/lokalt/8769
(link in swedish)

Heh. That article sounded almost too close to what I wrote here about a week ago. Especially the end

"Det faller sig så att 2008 har försvaret tagit emot och betalat alla de 204 Jas\39\Gripen. Då uppstår en lucka i materielbudgeten, som ligger på sammanlagt cirka 20 miljarder kronor. Där skulle C-17 kunna passa in."

Quick translation: "2008 the defense will have received and paid for all the 204 JAS39 Gripen. Creating a hole to fill in the budget... c-17 could fit there.."



Starting with budget year 2008 the Swedish Defense will have more spending money for new equipment. Today we annually spend the equivalent of 4 to 5 C-17's towards new delivieres of JAS 39 Gripen jets, which will come to an end 2007.

Grouping together 'peaceful' c-17's with 'evil' Apache's in a total package would imo go through easier, politically...

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showpost.php?p=1518633&postcount=25

[Bofors]

Heh. That article sounded almost too close to what I wrote here about a week ago. Especially the end

"Det faller sig så att 2008 har försvaret tagit emot och betalat alla de 204 Jas\39\Gripen. Då uppstår en lucka i materielbudgeten, som ligger på sammanlagt cirka 20 miljarder kronor. Där skulle C-17 kunna passa in."

Quick translation: "2008 the defense will have received and paid for all the 204 JAS39 Gripen. Creating a hole to fill in the budget... c-17 could fit there.."

Yeas, and in the meantime paying for all those Gripens we have been forced to shut down all the brigades, the whole coastalartillery, all artillery etc... The whole defencforces basicly. ( I know its not as bad as that but for a guy who grew up with a million man defenceforce, over 20 brigades and over 350 fighters it seems like it, glaring at the finns...)

[signatory]

Yeas, and in the meantime paying for all those Gripens we have been forced to shut down all the brigades, the whole coastalartillery, all artillery etc... The whole defencforces basicly. ( I know its not as bad as that but for a guy who grew up with a million man defenceforce, over 20 brigades and over 350 fighters it seems like it, glaring at the finns...)

I know how you feel but...
We didn't shut it all down, we just moved the LOD to the new russian border p-) I'm happy we bought all these Gripen's and closed the coastal artillery and much of the fixed defense organisation. Not too happy with the tiny amount of conscripts getting trained these days though. Not too happy with what's going on with the Navy either. Moving towards fewer, larger ships.
Not happy with the back and forth waste of money in moving around hangars and units etc.

But again happy that where we do not buy actual products we try to keep the know-how and possibility to produce at a way where production can be rapidly increased should the geopolitical scenario change yet again.

Anyway, OT....

[Ballistic]

Not too happy with the tiny amount of conscripts getting trained these days though....

OT and all but, how do you guys feel about conscription on the whole ? Do you accept it without a problem ? Do you feel the conscripted troops are as highly motivated as the volunteers ?

Good stuff about getting the C-17 aswell.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

I would support a scheme similar to conscription. But you had a choice with either community work or armed services.

However any conscript would be barred from serving overseas unless they wanted to serve overseas.

[signatory]

I would support a scheme similar to conscription. But you had a choice with either community work or armed services.

However any conscript would be barred from serving overseas unless they wanted to serve overseas.


That's pretty much how it works in Sweden. you don't really get a free choice but you can apply for un-armed service and do community work or in some aid organisation that benefits the country's security policy.

But conscription has always been a selective process, we all do 2 days of evaluation and now with less men selected they prioritize the ones eager to serve and those likely to commit to foreign service... And yep no one is forced to fight outside the national borders...if they want, they apply for it and sign a contract...

[Ballistic]

Sounds like a good and fair system. I hope it never really comes to it, but I think Australia should start to really consider something like this. With low recruitment numbers and retention problems something needs to be done. Paying higher wages comparable to the civilian sector and screwing around with the military justice system (ie putting in the hands of civilians) is not guaranteed to fix the issue, nor do I believe it will increase recruitment numbers as some seem to wishfully believe.

[Maskirovka]

Well, despite some peoples concerns about unreliable service&support contractors, lack of spare parts, interoperability and incompatible with NATO-equipment and logisticsproblems it now seems NATO will lease six An-124 Condors.

http://www.mosnews.com/money/2006/03/23/natoaircraft.shtml

[digrar]

shows how wrong we aimed.....do you think we should gt he HMAS Jervis Bay catamaran back?

Something a bit more practical is on the cards in the form of a couple of Landing Helicopter Dock ships, with the capacity to carry a dozen helo's, several hundred vehicles and a battalion group worth of troops.

[catalyst]

The LHDs with these C-17s will be a serious capability increase. Now the ADF could deploy with Wedgetail AWACs support and tankers, an Air combat group with ANZAC class frigates, AWDs and these LHDs. WHen a secure strip has been found the C-17s could ferry in a M1A1 or several ASLAVs.....enough forcve to contend with most in the region.

[Supe]

Well, despite some peoples concerns about unreliable service&support contractors, lack of spare parts, interoperability and incompatible with NATO-equipment and logisticsproblems it now seems NATO will lease six An-124 Condors.

http://www.mosnews.com/money/2006/03/23/natoaircraft.shtml


Those Condors have also been leased by the Americans (ditto Australia) as well as many European nations deployed to Iraq/Afghanistan/Africa in the past and likely to in the future because of its awesome capability. No-one says it isn't a capable aircraft - it clearly is. I'd be amazed if they were bought though let alone seriously considered in todays cost conscious/efficiency driven/ Western militaries who also have to ensure high standards of safety for its members. Perhaps if Antonov went into partnership with EADS with work done in the West...