TinWing@Ja Worsley
Hi Ja
the current issue of Flight Int. mentions the sale of the 4 C17s to Australia and quotes a contract price of $1.48 billion which works out at around $370 million per plane which seems a bit steep. What exactly are you getting for $1.48 billion?
It’s hard to guess about what precisely is included in the contract. More and more, lifetime support costs are being included in overall contract amounts.
What the Australians are getting is guaranteed strategic airlift capability for the next 30 to 40 years.
In the same article it is mentioned that the USAF is now reconsidering their previous resistance to buying more C17s. Operations in Afghanistan and Iraq are eating into the planes. Part of the $67.9 billion budget supplemental for 2006 will pay to repair C17s that have been damaged during hard landings.
Better check out the planes when you get them 🙂
Big surprise?
The C-17 is a strategic airlifter which can, and has been used like a tactical transport. The USAF puts its C-17s to harder use than any charter operated An-124.
The Aussies are getting new production aircraft, and it is highly doubtful that they will ever see the same sort of aggressive employment.
TinWingBased upon what I have learned in the last six years, the answer is definitely “Yes.” The Curtiss props had long blades, with an 18′ diameter. THe tip chord was over 7″, and tip speed was M 1.03 during takeoff and climb and M .97 at cruise. Tips on the inboards were close to the fuselage and sonic impingement on the airframe was huge. Also, because the T34s did not meet manufacturer’s specs, the airframe was lightened three times before metal was even cut. So, it was even more susceptible to vibration effects than a more robust structure might have been.
The C-133 makes an interesting comparison with the Shorts Belfast. The production Belfast featured 16′ props with four blades, driven by 5,730shp Rolls-Royce Tynes – less powerful than the 6,500-7,500hp T-34, but still worthy of technical comparisons.
The Belfast had an even shorter military carreer than the C-133 – although there is still at least one Belfast flying in commercial service today.
It should be admitted that the Belfast was a smaller, less powerful, less ambitious design, though.
TinWingDunno about tinwing and his smoking but India’s defence budget has incresed by 7.2% this year.
China’s defense budget is increasing by 14% this year.
Do I need to mention that China has far larger foreign currency reserves and far higher rates of sustained GDP growth?
TinWingIf the French can swallow their pride, they could use half a dozen as tankers (poor Rafale with just two drops for the mission is not a good solution).
The S-3 isn’t a very efficient tanker compared to the old KA-6D.
TinWingI’m a long time proponent of the S-3 As the ASW/ASuW attack, Tanker and COD aircraft for the Brazilian Navy’s São Paulo CV.
The reason I defend this choice is that there sure aren’t many options around capable of operating from our mid length deck and not very powerful catapults..
I would suggest that you do some research.
Did the S-3 Viking ever “crossdeck” on the Clemenceau or Foch?
I just wonder if it would be possible to simply replace the original military spec General Electric TF34-400 turbofan with 41.3 kN (4,210 kgp / 9,275 lbf) with the current civilian CF-34-8 (in the 13,790 – 14,500lbf range)
that powers the Embraer E-170 at an affordable price. The extra power would surely rock the little plane!
There were proposals to use less powerful 12,000+ lb st thrust civilian CF-34s to re-engine both the A-10 and S-3.
Second question, how can we add AEW capability to the S-3? Would the Ericson Erieye fit on it?
The far cheaper Searchwater AEW system is a potential option for the S-3. Thales even claims that the system can be fitted to the small retractible radome of the S-2.
It has been said that the S-3’s nose radome could easily accomodate Searchwater, although 360 degree coverage would be reduced to less than 270 degrees.
TinWingWho said anything about Russia financially supporting Ukrainian industry?
Look at where Aviastar is. Oh! It’s in Russia! There were (and still are, they haven’t been dismantled) two An-124 production facilities, one in Kiev, & one in Ulyanovsk (once Simbirsk, but unfortunately the locals have a hangup about some famous bloke who was born there, so won’t change the name back, unlike other Russian cities). The Russians are backing Aviastar, but out of mutual self-interest, Aviastar & Aviant co-operate. They settled that years ago, both wanting to avoid suicidal arguments over IPR & the like. Consider the name of Volga-Dnepr Group.
Pay attention!
The D-18 turbofans must be sourced from Ukraine. I also doubt that the production tooling was fully replicated at two locations.
The An-124 remains just as much a Ukrainian product as the An-70.
TinWingThe Strategypage site has a few comments about the possibility of the Venezuelan nut job Hugo Chavez attempting to drive the Dutch out of their Carribean islands.
Could the Dutch mount a successful defence of their island-holdings given their proximity to Venezuela even if they were given time to position forces?
The article is available at:
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htiw/articles/20060301.aspx
Sauron
Have you forgotten about NATO?
It is a fair to say that a Falklands-type scenario wouldn’t be repeated without full NATO intervention.
In any event, Chavez seems to be more intent on corrupting elections, corrupting neighboring regimes and supporting narco-terrorists as his proxies.
TinWingThe article reads … [u]”Our proposal will also address India’s interest in technology transfer and indigenous co-production.”[/u]
But you may be right … transfer of AESA technology from the US is doubtful… that’s why its better to go with the Russians …
It might be better for the American taxpayer if India decided to go Russian yet again.
If India opts for the F/A-18E (or F-16), India won’t have to pay for its new fighter fleet anytime soon….or perhaps at all.
FMS financing is little more than a subsidy for defense exports. Frequently, FMS loans are forgiven.
Considering India’s staggering foreign debt and negative per capita economic growth, it is perfectly reasonable to expect the debt from a a F/A-18 (or F-16) deal to be completely forgiven.
In other words, it will be interesting to see whether the prospect of free fighter planes trumps the technology transfer issue.
TinWing.
Example: We Canucks have a fleet of this A/C (earlier F-18s however) and,
the Canadian free press carries negative news about it almost constantly. Here in my
neck of the woods, our politicians, regardless if for the politics of it or if over economics,
classifies the F-18 almost as that of the subs we had bought from the UK.Don’t believe me? Ask any Canuck what their politicians thought
of the cost of maintaining and upkeeping their fleet of F-18s are.
The problems are deeper than the CF/A-18 fleet.
Just how many attempt did it take to find a single fully operable Canadian C-130?
Canada underfunds its defense. The CF/A-18 is getting on in years, and Canada should be in the advanced phases of procuring its replacement. Sadly, I don’t see that happening any time soon.
TinWingBut with those orders the production line should still be open despite what TinWing said.
It is hard to believe that a production line can be re-opened with only 4 paid orders. Perhaps there are enough spare parts and components left over from the Soviet era to assemble a handful of An-124s?
Even if the life cycle cost is higher, how much money are we talking about? I mean, jeez its just four (4!) planes, not an entire system of advanced fighters. Remember that they offer versions with Rolls-Royce engines and avionics from Honeywell, the maintenance and fuelcosts should not be that high with an all western equipment. And those planes can pack twice the cargo as a C-17 and are twice as efficient, that should be calculated as well. According to this page http://www.sfu.ca/casr/id-strategicair.htm the maintenanence and support costs isn´t higher but I don´t know how credible that source is. It also claims that a purchase prize of the C-17 is between 160-230 mil. us dollar while the cost of a Condor is only 25 mil. us dollar. 25 mil. seems ridicoulus cheap…
Perhaps the $25 million figure is from the Soviet era, or applies to a used An-124 built the Soviet era?
Despite lower wage scales, production costs in the Ukraine (or Russia) aren’t very much less than in Western Europe or North America. For instance, in the unlikely event that China placed a large order for the An-124 (or An-70), it would be far less expensive to set up the production line in China.
Integrating new engines and avionics into the An-124 won’t be cheap, either. The Rolls Royce proposal to re-engine the An-124 dates from over a decade ago. Is the RB211 still in production?
My best guess is that actual acquistion costs for a new production, Western engined An-124 would be in same neighborhood as the C-17, but the support costs would be dramatically higher. It would also be impossible to quantify the risks involved.
If the USAF’s 180 strong fleet of C-17s was ever grounded, heads would roll and billions would be spent by the USAF to get the C-17 back in the air.
It is 100% guaranteed that the C-17 will remain in the air for the next 30-40 years.
If the An-124 fleet was grounded, what would happen? Possibly….nothing? Would the Ukranian government shell out billions to put the An-124 back in the air? No?
As I said in the beginning, the C-17 is a safe option for a small unit purchase. The An-124 is suitable for a short term charter.
TinWingInteresting article in Foreign Affairs (http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060301faessay85204-p30/keir-a-lieber-daryl-g-press/the-rise-of-u-s-nuclear-primacy.html) current issue.
For four decades, relations among the major nuclear powers have been shaped by their common vulnerability, a condition known as mutual assured destruction. But with the U.S. arsenal growing rapidly while Russia’s decays and China’s stays small, the era of MAD is ending — and the era of U.S. nuclear primacy has begun.
The United States is now seeking to maintain its global preeminence, which the Bush administration defines as the ability to stave off the emergence of a peer competitor and prevent weaker countries from being able to challenge the United States in critical regions such as the Persian GulfWashington will have what strategists refer to as “escalation dominance” — the ability to win a war at any level of violence .
It also says that the US is deliberately pursuing the capacity of a first strike, decapitating strike at China and Russia. Russia is loosing gradually its capacity of a retaliatory strike against the US, while China is decades away from having one.
Interesting figures too : such as the fact that Russia’s nine SLBM are mostly in port, lacking training and all strategic bombers are only on two basis, where they could be destroyed.
The whole article suggests that the US might be tempted by a decapitating strike in the next years, disarming Russia /China. The MAD theory is on the demise and hawks are happy about it… because it would mean a strong US preminence.
Frightenining … the benefits of nuclear primacy will be trumped by the dangers.
This is pure Anti-American propaganda.
TinWingI thought the An-124 was in production? According to http://www.airforce-technology.com : “In September 2004, the governments of Russia and the Ukraine announced that series production of the An-124 would be restarted. Up to 80 An-124-100M upgraded aircraft are to be jointly manufactured by Aviastar and Aviant between 2006 and 2020.”
If it would be possible to get some Condors as fast as the Globemasters you think they would have won? Why is that?
Plenty of factors have changed since 2004.
Given the current political environment, why would the Russians financially support Ukrainian industry?
TinWingGreat decision, I hope Italy will come soon after, it all hangs up in the April Election
The same goes for Canada.
Canada’s defense priorities – peacekeeping and disaster assistance – favor a strategic ranged airlifter.
TinWingDoes anyone know what the official number of Eurofighters ordere by the RAF is. I always thought it was 232 and so do most other sources but other sources say its only 144.
Have the RAF commited to tranche 3 yet?
The 232 aircraft order is supposedly set in stone.
Of course, the problem with the Eurofighter is the oversized Tranche 1 and 2 purchase, not Tranche 3.
The RAF really needs Eurofighters with Tranche 3 capabilities right now – not in the next decade.
TinWingIMHO, everyone should either buy An-124’s or An-225’s sure the reality is so far off this that it’s basically on another planet, but to please everyones requirements on the Strategis lift issue, only these two planes can truly be counted 😉
These Soviet era airlifters represent a huge risk for any potential purchaser.
It is cheap and easy to occasionally charter an An-124, but there are huge risks associated with actually owning a fleet of these monsters.
Sign In
