Again, from Feb 27 issue of AWS&T - Singapore registered an interest in US$220 mil C-17. That's a big leap in airlift capacity over the C-130s. :blink: Whatever, if we are going to see a purchase of C-17s, it'll have to be by around mid-year, with the impending closure of the C-17 production line.

:blink: :blink: :blink:

I wld hav thot a natural progression wld b to get the A400M, which wld allow us to transport our BX, Primus and SM-1 replacement, etc. (super-tight fit for C130)

.......unless they wan it to carry something of a MBT class? <_<

I'm no expert.

But I kinda expected it when the Aussie did likewise. I'm not referring to an arms race here. Still going for C-17 is the right choice in my un-educated mind.

Looks like our ecosystem is far reaching.

But the cost! US$220 mil a copy. That's a whopper. Imagine just 4 of these - that's a billion dollar contract. Considering how long they agonised over the NGF contract, I'm not sure they can get to a decision in time to procure the C-17 before the line closes. That's if they actually decide to procure it. 'Interest' is a long long way from 'contract', and often doesn't lead to it anyway.

the airlift capability will be seriously multiplied :o

the C-5s are still in production right?

Was actually expecting that RSAF would be acquiring the newer C130Js...why the sudden interest in C17s? Was this expected? I mean given our current and mid term future requirements do these giants match or fit in?

C-5s? Production long since stopped.

I too thought the C-130H as more probable, with up to the A400 as still being plausible. C-17s? A bit hard to swallow, without more information. It could be nothing more than just a RFI, a survey of the capabilities available out there.

I was expecting them to purchase the A400M when the timing and pricing is right...

....it's still a vaporplane at the moment :lol:

....C-17 is an overkill, esp. at $220m a pop. :wacko: , meaning u get only 4 planes for $1b.

....sure it can carry more but putting all the eggs in one basket?

Better to get more C-130Js then.

And the A400M if we really need a global heavy lift capability.Don't tell me we are going to have boots pounding in the Darfur region? :lol: :lol:

C17s?? Is the SAF trying to lift equipment for overseas training instead of shipping them by sea? Or flying heavy equipment back home during emergencies?

i hope i'm wrong, but perhaps the chances of acquiring the A400M fell when malaysia announced its decision to buy...hope RSAF is not that short-sighted

Just went around some websites....one site claims $180 million. Still a whopper!

Speculation here........Could be a new initiative in the new world(US to be specific) order? Buy first lease back later(to whom?)? Something along the line of "pooling" of assets that project soft power(next maybe additional CH-47s)? I think Singapore has "do our part" in the fight against terror(more towards the US budget deficit, I think)?

Sounds stupid, I know. I'm no expert. This deal may happen faster?

I do not believe Malaysia's procurement of A400s would have any bearing on Singapore's choice of future airlift carrier. I think I finally got onto a plausible answer, after considering quite a few alternatives. It's definitely not for airlifting armoured vehicles. Nobody does that if possible, not even US. It is simply an extremely inefficient way of doing things. However, for airlifting of the support equipment for overseas squadrons, that would make a lot of sense. And it would be able to do that, I suspect, much more efficiently and quickly than the A400.

I support any decision to buy/loan C-17s (hopefully 4 or more). With the need of RO/RO capability, peacekeeping, heavier SAF equipment, mercy missions and ability to using short dirt runway. A C-17 can almost do what 2 C-130 at a fast speed with RO/RO capability(safer and faster unloading). A400 is not a pretty competitor as it is rather different in powerplant (turboprop) which cannot be replace by a commerical one.

:blink: indeed!

One thing though, the value of the C-17 cannot be measured by it's equivalency of 3 C130 or 2 A400M. How do you measure equivalency when you have a 60 ton asset that needs to be lifted, which the C-17 can but which 3xC130 or 2xA400M can't no matter how hard they try (unless they are allowed to cut up the cargo).

Therein lies the issue ... do we have any assets >37 tons (A400M capability) that require such deployment capabilities? Do we really need to have that GUARANTEED airlift capability of 4 platforms that cannot be trusted to ad-hoc leased air lifts, like what we did for lifting the Apaches back. (4 platforms - assuming a budget of $1bn and similar procurement to the RAAF.)

Unless the above is an issue than I'm more in favour of getting 8 of the less capable A400M rather than 4 C-17. This allows more flexibilty in deployment.

Another simplistic way of looking at it is that a C-17 cost $220mil and has a raw payload of 75 tons = $3.75mil per ton. A400Ms' payload is 37tons at a cost of $80-120mil = $2.1 to $3.25mil per ton. C-130Js' payload of 20 tons at $67mil each = $3.35 mil per ton. Simple maths but as I said, overly simplistic ... does anyone here have the info for life cycle costing?

Either way, A400M or C-17, if we get them, we will be improving our airlift capabilities hugely. As mentioned by members above, this will manifest itself most visibly in the speed and capability of our response to future humanitarian missions.

In case it's not obvious from the above ... I don't like the C-130J :rolleyes:

The pooling of strategic resources had its hint in the Global Hawk issue with the RAAF too.

It is a paradigm shift if the RSAF were to be seen to require dedicated organic lift support which only the C-17 can provide.

.................................C-17................A400.............C-130J

Price.........................~200mil............~100mil.........~50mil
Max Load..................~59ton..............~32ton..........~19ton
C. Space...................~573m3.............~272m3........~128m3

Max range.................~9,630km..........~3,333km......~5,240km
(with Max load)

simple efficiency calculation... based on max cargo load.

max cargo load multiply max range divided by cost.(the bigger the number the more cost efficient)

C-17 ------- 59*9630/200=2840.85
A400 ------ 32*3333/100=1066.56
C-130J ------- 19*5240/50=1991.2

Winner -----------> C-17
2nd --------------> C-130J
Last --------------> A400

almost 3 times as efficient as A400 and twice as efficient as a C-130J

simple efficiency calculation... based on max cargo space.
max cargo space multiply max range divided by cost.(the bigger the number the more cost efficient)

C-17 ------- 573*9630/200=27,589.95
A400 ------- 272*3333/100=9,065.76
C-130J ------- 128*5240/50=13,414.4

Winner -----------> C-17
2nd ---------------> C-130J
Last ---------------> A400

seems to me... A400 is an IDIOTIC buy.... :blink:

Exchange rates may come in play. Have to compare SGD rates to USD and EUROs.

This could have been one factor why we chose F15 instead.

Cheerz
Orange

Most of time, exchange rate is only a little factor but can add up a strain on budget. This is up to the two goverment to lobby the price before inking on paper.

C-17 production which may be closing would see USA open up the option sales and foregin sales to new customers. Possible sales are targetted on a number of nations like Korea, Japan, India and even Taiwan. This is to keep the pentagon option open for any more purchase of C-17 on their side. Exsiting customers of C-17 are also encourage to take up their remaining option buy.

Related news from:
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2006/0...4-c17s-updated/

Check out the pricetags (incl. support)

I think this is another hubbing initiative - the military logistics kind, based around Changi Naval Base and Changi Airbase.

With 6 C-17 on a kind of wet leasing agreement with US.... should anchor some of their warehousing here, (some which in the form of pre-positioning ships - docking fees?), plus more air traffic - landing fees, maybe MRO services for their fighting assets even.

Exchange all those fees for technology transfer in the Global Hawk, GPS, remote sensing, JSTAR etc.

Another leg(military industry) to prop up our economy. $2 billion investment in C-17s.... much less riskier than $13 billion R&D.

Based on those figures I'd agree the A400M will be an idiotic purchase.

Only problem is, how efficient will the C-17 be if you only have 30tons that need to be lifted? At half-cargo capacity, it's not going to be as dramatically efficient as the full load figures would suggest.

The other problem with your figures, as mine were, are that they are overly simplistic in figuring raw cost per ton lift capability. Slap on bigger tanks to get longer range and the figures will improve dramatically. Given that all these aircrafts are capable of in-flight refueling (in theory no maximum range), figuring range in the calculation is kinda spurious.

I'd be more interested if anyone can provide figures on operating cost per ton mile, as well as operating cost over the life cycle of the platform (factoring in man hours maintenance requirements, etc..)

Reason why I don't like the C-130J is it's quite limited lift capability vis a vis some of the >20 tons assets we have.

Eh! I was under the impression that the Ch-47 would not fit into the C-17 ... ?! One of the more substantial reasons why the C-17 was less attractive in mine eyes. If the Chinook can really be squeezed in than it's heaps more points for purchasing the C-17.

I was left wondering during the Pakistan/India quake what we could have rendered in assistance if we could have deployed our Pumas/Chinooks there. Would have been great for fostering better ties with Pakistan if we could have done something more than a DART/Medical team.

If we could swing the whole deal ... it'd be fantastic to say the least.

The bits up till the MRO services are all very plausible and ties in nicely with their logistics hubs for Changi bases rights deal. But just how likely are to to agree to the tech transfer bits? Not wanting to be a doubting Thomas ... but ...heck! whad do I know about politics. :rolleyes:

Tech transfers of such magnitude over a paltry 4 C17 purchase? Never gonna happen. Speaking of airlift, do the C130s in RSAF service do aerial resupply missions? :huh:

Yes.. Infact we do quite alot in overseas due to airspace and land restriction back home. :)

I also read reports of boeing trying to commericallise C-17 for commerical air cargo transport. If i not wrong the commerical version is yet to be ordered by any airliner and should be a little cheaper than the "military" version of C-17s. (a few million dollars cheaper? for commerical version)

I believe that the RSAF's next priority is timely expeditionary relief force deployment around the world.

It's the next best way to test our deployment turnaround timing, our Joint forces integration, not to mention perform acts of goodwill which will pay back nicely in the future.I'm not trying to say that the RSAF is a greedy organisation, but politics are unavoidable.

What counts is that we have the bank of goodwill and respect for our force reaction.I bet many Singaporeans were equally surprised at the speed at which we could deploy to Nias over a post-holiday weekend.It's one thing to hear your encik tell you about our ability over a field dinner, and one thing to see and hear it for yourself.

It's no surprise that there is a higher perceptible sense of admiration and respect for the boys in both deep blue and sky blue, army not withstanding.

Sorry, I don't think I was specific enough. I meant like air drop of supplies to units. Do they do something like these?

There was no commercialised C-17 version. The idea was that the C-17s were to be sold to participants in the Civil Reserve Air Fleet, and the planes were to be subsidised by the Pentagon to encourage their purchase. For whatever reason, the idea died. It looked like a good idea, but it was either unpractical, or it was too innovative for their Congress.

Yes i got wat u mean YF..
Our C130s do alot airdrops overseas.. including local. There is alot of delivery methods for C130s. Certain drop need a big drop zone and airspace which locally unavailable, eg Heavy Eqpt Drop. Thats why only can conduct at overseas.. On wat Eqpt can be dropped frm our aircraft and where are we conducting our training, i dont think is wise to elaborate here. ;)
For those smaller loads..they do conduct the drop locally once awhile.
And u will be surprised to know wat we capable of dropping. :)
Hope the above will be of help.

I wonder if free-fall air drops for re-supply are still relevant today?

My guess is these parachutes should be GPS guided.

I'm sure free-fall air drops for re-supply are still very relevant today. It is only when if your side has the air superority. Not sure parchutes can be GPS guided but a GPS allows the loadmaster to air drop more accurately to his desireded target.

This must be one hell of a technology. :o

It already been operational for along time.. :)

Thanks, Caterpillar. As for LaoTiKo, why would aerial resupply not be relevant today? I would think it especially relevant for units which are inserted behind enemy lines and would not have access to land based logistic lines for a while.

(Global Positioning Systems) World @ 01 SEP 2004 - U.S. Marines used GPS-guided parachutes to carry supplies to soldiers in an Iraq combat zone for the first time on 09 AUG 2004.

Programmed with the drop zone's coordinates and maneuvered by motor-tugged lines, the Sherpa Autonomous Parafoil Delivery System units steered themselves from nearly two miles high to within less than 200 meters of their target. A week prior to the Sherpa's debut, a KC-130 had dropped a load of rations for Marines at Korean Village. Even from the aircraft's altitude of 800 feet, the cargo landed 300 meters from its target, according to Army Capt. Art Pack, combat developer with the Army's Combined Arms Support Command in Fort Lee, Virginia.

The owner of the new Sherpa is the 1st Air Delivery Platoon, part of Combat Service Support Battalion 7, 1st Force Service Support Group, which delivers supplies to Marine units throughout the vast western portion of Iraq's Al Anbar Province. Mist Mobility Integrated Systems Technology, Inc., of Ottawa, Canada, manufactures the Sherpa.

Although years away, the U.S. military is currently developing the Joint Precision Air Drop System (JPADS), a family of computer-guided cargo parachutes expected one day to support 21-ton loads. Military leaders want JPADS to provide an alternative, less risky and more precise method of delivering supplies in combat zones.

Currently, cargo is dropped via "dumb" parachutes, which have varying accuracy depending on the altitude of the aircraft and wind conditions during the drop, says Pack. Low-altitude drops, classified as anything under 2,000 feet, are fairly accurate, but put the plane and its crew in range of crippling enemy fire.

In Afghanistan, where air delivery is used heavily to resupply forces in remote locations, loads have landed more than a kilometer from troops on the ground, forcing them to hike and hunt for the goods.

Drop zones, or DZs, are sometimes marked with colored-smoke grenades or large canvas markers. That, followed by the low-flying planes, could give away the friendly unit's location, says Gunnery Sgt. Lorrin K. Bush, head of the air delivery platoon who has served seven years in air delivery and six in reconnaissance.

With the Sherpa, however, pilots don't even need to see the ground and can make accurate drops day or night from as high as 25,000 feet and as far as nine miles from the drop zone, says Pack.

While in flight, the Sherpa constantly checks its position using a GPS receiver, and makes flight adjustments as necessary, pulling on two steering lines to turn the parachute. Before any mission, the aircraft's altitude and speed, the cargo's weight, the drop zone location, and wind speeds for various heights must be programmed into the Sherpa's control unit so that it can calculate a flight plan. It can even be programmed to maneuver around obstacles or locations where enemy forces are located.

The Sherpa calculates the precise point in the sky where the cargo must be dropped. As a result, the parachute riggers are taking on more responsibility since they can now plan part of the flight's path. Previously, this task fell upon the plane's navigator.

"The GPS-guided chute gives us more flexibility dropping the load," says Capt. Robert D. Hornick, a KC-130 cargo plane copilot from Marine Aerial Refueler Transport Squadron 352, the unit that flew the mission. "We just get close to the DZ and drop it, and it does the rest."

Each system, which includes a body, canopy, riggings, remote control, rechargeable batteries and software, costs $68,000, said Bush. A standard military cargo parachute runs approximately $11,000. After 10 drops using the Sherpa, followed by an analysis of results, the First Air Delivery Platoon should receive 18 more Sherpas, if everything checks out.

Of the five million pounds of cargo moved by Combat Service Support Battalion 7 since March, approximately 100,000 pounds parachuted in, says Lt. Col. Adrian Burke, the battalion's commander. While air delivery has seen limited use by the Marines thus far in Iraq, it helps reduce the number of Marines and vehicles taking to the dangerous Iraqi highways.

JPADS represents a convergence of the Army's Precision Extended Glide Airdrop System and the USAF PADS program, now jointly managed by the U.S. Army Natick Soldier Center along with the Army's airdrop product manager, PM Force Sustainment Systems, and the U.S. Air Force Air Mobility Command. JPADS was approved for the current fiscal year as an advanced concept technology demonstration initiative. This article is based largely on a manuscript prepared by USMC Staff Seg. Bill Lisbon.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Joint Precision Airdrop System (JPADS) ACTD -
Precision And Extended Glide Airdrop System (PEGASYS)


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


** Project-ION Phoenix ** ** Op. IceBerge ** ** Iowa_BB61 ** ** xxKuZNeTxx **


------------------

I'm no expert. I just didn't think free-fall would be as effective, certainly if in a stealth operation - maybe re-supply long range patrols. Which requires really high altitudes to drop (because of the glide-slope of parachutes) to get the range if you want to be out of harm's way.

Yes, air superiority is a requirement.

But as is probably more the case where the FEBA may not be so clearly drawn especially for rapid deployment units, I guess that's where GPS guidance will help prevent re-supplies falling into wrong hands.

As Caterpillar mentioned, it's been in-operation quite some time! Hopefully the new stuff will use a more efficient wing to get better range like the type used by the guy who flew across the English Channel. Or better still a UAV to deliver right up to your doorstep.

Edit: Was typing this as IOWA posted above. Ya, I recall the Sherpa.....they have a powered version too.

I didn't have time to check your figures, on first reading, so I accepted them on faith. I did find the range figures for the A400M a bit disconcerting and that kept nagging at me. Now that I've got a bit of time, I did a quick search and this is what I've got ...

(Sorry but I have to correct your figures)



SOURCES

C-17 Globemaster III from Boeing and US Airforce Fact Sheet

Raw Data:
Cost : US$202.3 mil in FY98 Fiscal Dollars
Max Payload: 164,900 lbs
Payload/Range : 160,000 lbs/2,420 nm*
Payload/Range : 100,300 lbs/4,000 nm

*Note: af.mil fact sheet on the C-17 is interesting in the additional info it provides on the range ... Quote: "With a payload of 160,000 pounds and an initial cruise altitude of 28,000 feet, the C-17 has an unrefueled range of approximately 2,400 nautical miles". This seems to indicate that the range quoted is overly optimistic as it does not include fuel burnt on takeoff and climb to cruising altitude. Actual range may be shorter. Due to lack of other evidence, I shall use the Boeing figures of 2,420 nm at 160,000 lbs.


A400M from Airbus

Raw Data:
Cost : Euro$100 mil but as there are many sources claiming ballooning cost, I shall not put this figure in.
Max payload : 37 tons
Payload/Range : 37 tons/ 1,800 nm
Payload/Range : 30 tons/ 2,600 nm
Payload/Range : 20 tons/ 3,750 nm


C-130J-30 from Lockheed-Martin and US Airforce Fact Sheet

Raw Data (US Airforce Data):
Cost : US$48.5mil in FY98 Dollars
Max Payload : 47,812 lbs (44,000 lbs)
Payload/Range : 40,000 lbs / 2,380 nm (35,000 / 2,100nm)

Data from the above two sources are slightly different. Without other corraborative sources, I have presented both as they still present a plausible performance envelope for the C-130J-30

Conversions Units Used:
kg to lb = 2.2046
nm to km = 1.852
FY98 to FY04 = 1.119 (derived from data from here)


Somebody please correct me if the above is wrong
otherwise can I assume that the above figures will be correct in future discussions of the above aircrafts?

BTW, the A400M doesn't look to have such short legs now.

ah.. yes.. think i made a slight mistake...

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/c-17.htm

i mistaken the 59ton as the max load... and the figure for C-17 range is 9630km while carrying 59ton.. which i think is probably at 80% max capacity...

if at 74.8ton and a range of 4,482km. the efficiency of for the C-17 at max load should be 74.8*4482/200 = 1676.268

which is still more efficient then the A400M at 1066.56

which will also mean that the C-130J is the most efficient at max load with a score of 1990+

but given the fact.. most of the time... chances is ... a transport would NOT be carrying MAX LOAD... i believe that the C-17 is still the better choice.. if not for the efficieny.. then at least the ability to haul very heavy cargo which no C-130J can hope to haul...

and given the fact that the C-17 can fly unlimited range even with max load with ATA refueling... its a definite plus over the C-130J...

furthermore.. i read somewhere that the price for the C-17 is probably between 160 to 170million per piece.. which would imply a higher efficieny figure...

and given the uncertainty of the A400 developement... almost like the tranch 3 EF2000... i wont want to risk it..

IceStorm, just a quick reply ...

Your source, fas.org claims 5,200 nm with a payload of 130,000 lbs (80% load)

Boeing, the makers of the C-17 claim figures of 2,420nm/160,000lbs (100% load) 4,000nm/100,300lbs (60% load) and 5,610nm/40,000lbs (25% load)

To put it into a table:

100% load ... 2,420nm (Source: Boeing)
80% load ... 5,200nm (Source: fas.org)
60% load ... 4,000nm (Source: Boeing)
25% load ... 5,610nm (Source: Boeing)

I believe one of the above figure is wrong ... which do you think it is?

Anyhow, this is just a quibble about range and payload. I'll answer the rest of your post when I have more time later.

Oh BTW, you're giving the impression that only the C-17 is capable of air-to-air refueling ...

all 3 aircrafts (C-17, A400M and C-130J) are capable of ATA refuels.