t68
Well-Known Member
Who got that?
Royal Australian Air Force [RAAF] News, Discussions and Updates
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Where did the last whitetail go to? The attached link from Nov 2015 mentions the final prodction C17 was destined for Qatar after fitting out in San Antonio. However in a later paragraph the article mentions one "stored" whitetail. Did Qatar buy this one as well?
http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-n...ed-california-departs-boeings-plant:confused:
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
the cousins also give them a flogging - so not too many low mileage ones would be about.
mothballing tends to be focused on the oldest ones as well as their maint cycles are higher and therefore more attractive to pull out of the pool to lower sustainment costs.
The last one went to Qatar.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/last-of-the-globemasters-the-usafs-final-orders-05283/
Edit.
There is still one unaccounted for Reg No. N272ZD which is still owned by Boeing and currently in storager in San Antionio
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/last-of-the-globemasters-the-usafs-final-orders-05283/
Edit.
There is still one unaccounted for Reg No. N272ZD which is still owned by Boeing and currently in storager in San Antionio
Last edited:
The one that went to Qatar is the 10th serial in the white tails, The 3rd one is still sitting there.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
In the integrated investment program under proposed future force there is shaded in blue "Air to air refuelling aircraft-Goverment transport and communications capability ($190m)". Would i be right in saying that this sounds an awful lot like a conversion of at least one of the KC-30s to the VIP role, the money sounds about right.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
2 other Air projects in the DWP that have'nt been mentioned here are the Hawk replacement (USAF future jet trg ac would have to be a strong contender) and a replacement for the King Air nav trainers.
John Newman
The Bunker Group
When the Government ordered the 6th and 7th (ex Qantas birds) a little while back, there was talk then of at least one having a VIP interior fitted.
Just because one (or more) might have a VIP fit out doesn't mean that it won't be a fully capable KC-30A and be able to perform the roles of the other KC-30A's, it will just mean that the actual 'cabin' layout will be different and no doubt less passenger capacity of the other all 'economy' style seating.
The VIP interior will probably be in either/or Nos 6 & 7 and probably not the later 8 & 9 (assuming the 2 leased BBJ's are withdrawn prior to 8 & 9).
At the end of the day, as long as all nine airframes have the appropriate AAR capability, does it really matter if one or two are fitted for VIP work too? I wouldn't think so.
John Newman
The Bunker Group
No mention of those two airframes? Probably the same reason there is no talk of an eventual replacement of the C-130J's for example.
The DWP is talking about either new capabilities starting to be introduced in the next ten years, or capabilities that will have to be replaced within the next ten years.
The Hawk and King Air nav trainers (and the C-130J's) probably fall just outside that period.
No doubt we will see future 'adjustments' to the DWP and especially the Integrated Investment Program (the replacement for the old DCP that used to be updated on at least a yearly basis).
There's a swap out module for the C-17's as well. It's a "DFAT Suite" - been used a few times already
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Well there you go! Didn't know that one.
It will be interesting to see if the VIP fit out is 'modular' or fixed (as in the BBJ's).
Again, at the end of the day, who really cares as long as the primary roles are there, we've gone from five, soon to be seven and a little later nine KC-30A airframes.
Pretty good if you ask me!!!
Option - T346A - already flying for the Italians/NATO under the TLP (Tactical Leadership Programme) as “Aggressors”
Also on the shortlist as a replacement for the USAF T-X advanced trainer program
Last edited:
There's a whole series of modules available for the C-17's.
RAAF is big on letting govt know that their big non combat airframes are capable of being used for a multiple of roles outside of core capability
its one of the reasons why they get less grief when they front up for a gate review.
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Talking of the VIP fleet (and I think the answer of what replaces the BBJ's is pretty clear).
I do wonder when the Challenger 604's come up for replacement (assuming there is a replacement?) at the end of their lease, if the airframe chosen is the Gulfstream G550?
Would make sense to me to have a common airframe for both the VIP and 'special missions' roles too.
I do wonder when the Challenger 604's come up for replacement (assuming there is a replacement?) at the end of their lease, if the airframe chosen is the Gulfstream G550?
Would make sense to me to have a common airframe for both the VIP and 'special missions' roles too.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
John on page 62 of the intergrated investment program there ia a program for training support aircraft 2019-2024 $100-200m. With the Hawk i think you may be right. It come up on an article on AA about there being replacements for both but on checking the Integrated Defence Program there is only one mention on the LIFT capability so that is probably the Hawk upgrade but at $4-5bn would that be any cheaper than a new complete trg system.
Last edited by a moderator:
John Newman
The Bunker Group
I'd imagine that the 'gate' was rarely slammed in the face of the C-17's with their many and varied roles and uses too.
Talking of the C-17 and 'heavy lift', I must say I'm intrigued as to what the Government is actually talking about in the DWP.
Reading through the Integrated Investment Program (IIP, have to learn not to say DCP!!), there is a bit of a 'contradiction' in terminology.
On page 67 of the IIP, it has a chart with (starting from 2025) 'Medium/Heavy Air Mobility Aircraft', with a price range of $1B-$2B.
But further down in the text on page 69 it says, 'considering future additional heavy-lift transport aircraft'.
To me 'pure' heavy lift is a C-17 sized airframe, but of course there will be no 'new' available when we start looking to introduce that capability from 2025 (unless we have a nice little Gentleman's agreement with our American friends to give us some extra 'low mileage' C-17's in the future, sort of like how we had an agreement with the USA about the F-111's when there was the provision for six 'attrition' replacements).
On the other hand 'medium/heavy' lift certainly sounds more like the, still currently in production, A-400M.
The other possibility is what future requirement will the USAF have for the replacement of the C-130's, will it be another evolution of the A-J airframe? or will it be a 'larger' airframe, in the A-400M class?
Timing still suggests an A-400M to me, maybe the 'supplement' and eventual replacement of the C-130J's.
Just a guess, and just my opinion of course too!!!
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
Thanks John, conversion was probably the wrong way to put it, an added capability is probably better. Certainly the aircraft would maintain the full Tanker capability. I can't see how the equipment would effect its ability to operate as a VIP jet.
Last edited by a moderator:
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Not having time yet to actually read (and re-read the IIP yet), just bits and pieces, what you are referring to on p62 could be as you say.
As to Hawk (and as I said the C-130J's), they probably fall a bit outside of the 10 year DWP and IIP.
As I said, in the past the DCP (now IIP) was usually updated at least every 12mths, so possibly next year or the year after we might end up seeing a new project, AIR????, which will be the Hawk replacement and eventually another AIR???? project which will be the C-130J replacement.