Boeing establishes Australian sustainment for C-17A fleet

Boeing Defence Australia has completed all of the initial activities required to establish a local sustainment management program for the Royal Australian Air Force’s eight C-17A Globemaster heavylift transports.

This was achieved at the beginning of October, three months after contract signature, Boeing announced on Thursday.

“To have stood up a significantly enhanced sustainment capability in such a short period of time is an incredible achievement and a testament to the C-17 team’s complete dedication to supporting our customer’s needs,” Boeing Defence Australia Integrated Services and Support general manager Murray Brabrook said in a statement.

Boeing was awarded the Australian C-17 Sustainment Services Contract for an initial five-year term, with options out to the retirement of the type.

The contract includes the management of services, provision of integration, engineering and maintenance, and supplements Australia’s membership in the Boeing Globemaster III Integrated Sustainment Program.

Comments

  1. ESLowe says

    Well, gone are the days (1955) when we had nothing but DC4s and look in awe of the USAF Globemaster II.The good thing is that the Globemaster III capacity is not something we will want give .when our C17s reach the end of their service life. I’m wondering too, if we will take the A 400 Atlas as the eventual replacement for our 20 year old C130js. (By then the Atlas engine problems should be fixed)

  2. Mick181 says

    Yes the J Herc replacement is going to be an interesting one. Still a good 10 years away, i suspect it will be a real wait and see exercise. What wll be available then? new model Hercs, A400s, KC-390s, C-2s? They could all be available or they could all be out of production by then. They will all need further orders for their lines to be open in 2030. The Americans may have a Herc replacement under development by then but not an Aircraft ready to go.

  3. ESLowe says

    Interesting seeing how things catch up: I remember watching the Strategic Air Command (1955) and being awestruck as a kid as the piston-engine Globemaster II heavy-lift planes took on troops and even semi-trailer petrol tankers to fly off to Japan. In those days Australia was lucky to have the DC 4. I’m glad we have 8, C17s, …but have we 2 additional white tails on reserve…Turnbull keeps alluding to getting additional “heavy lift” planes…yet the C 130 is not heavy lift. The Atlas cannot carry the Abrams tank – a requirement for our heavy lift aeroplanes – and it doesn’t make sense, to me anyway, that we’d buy only two of a type.The crew training, maintenance, spare parts inventory seems to much trouble…..any thoughts?

  4. says

    I think the 130js could keep going and going. I’m sure there would be a plan to keep it up to date for some time yet. Have a look at the B-52 , the here could still go another 20 years easy. Just my opinion tho.

  5. Dave N says

    Wonder if our c130j replacement will be influenced by what the kiwis choose to replace theirs,in my opinion the only aircraft to replace a c130 is another c130.

  6. Mick181 says

    Dave N
    There doesn’t appear to be any inclination to follow the other in Military procurement and in recent years there has been a number of times our countries have gone different paths including with the new assualt Rifles, Australia went with a modernized Steyr NZ has rejected the Steyr, Australia went Spanish for the new supply ships, NZ went with a South Korean build for theirs and Australia is getting PC-21 trg ac, NZ went with the T-6.
    While yes there is every chance NZ will buy P-8s and C-130Js in the future it will be due to the fact that they are the best choices.

  7. ESLowe says

    Dave and Nick may be right, but I’m going on the idea that the Atlas has twice (roughly) the capacity of the C130 that flew first in 1954…big for its day with the Berlin Airlift a recent memory. BUT, as one RAF pilot remarked, “Atlas carries loads, the C 130 cannot to airfields the C 17 cannot. The Atlas can do twice the job of the C 130 to the same runways….. we get twice “the bang for our buck.”

  8. Scotty says

    Mick181

    Im hoping we go down the C2 / p1 option. better bang for buck in New Zealand.

    also i dont think weve followed the aussies since the anzac frigates. even our original seasprites were different to the aussie spec, same with NH90.. In saying that the aussie seasprite project cant of been that bad if NZ can make them work lol.

  9. ESLowe says

    ….regarding the Seasprite; I think Australia may have been too ambitious in expecting such an old tech. helicopter to be adaptable to advanced electronic warfare. The Kiwi demands of the air-frame were much less demanding…..

  10. Bill says

    The sea sprite problems came about because Australia tried to put a digital flight control system in a 1960s designed aircraft and, surprisingly, it didn’t work.