Article

2006-09-14 Europe

..bad news: they're only gonna buy 4 of 'em. H/T to Austin Bay.
NATO wants to have its own strategic lift capacity at least a small one for multi-naitonal efforts. The USAF provides the bulk of airlift assets for NATO, and given that NATO is considering buying only three or four C-17s, the USAF would still do the heavy-lifting.
Key excerpt:
the 13 nations have developed a plan to create NATO Strategic Airlift Capability (SAC) based at Ramstein Air Force Base. Initially comprised of 3 to 4 C-17s, the SAC will be flown by multinational aircrews (pilots and loadmasters) and a multinational military structure will be created to command and control the aircraft. Discussions are underway with NATOs NAEW&C Force Command, the unit which flies the NATO AWACS, to determine the appropriate military organizational structure.

Because of the urgent operational need for strategic airlift, the SAC nations intend to conclude contract negotiations this year, and have the goal of receiving the first C-17 by the middle or end of next year. Plans are already underway to identify pilots for training at US Air Force facilities. Additional planes are called for to be delivered every six months. Thus the initial operating capability is planned for 3rd Quarter, 2007 with full operating capability in 2009.
...I'm really sorry to keep harping on this,but the numbers alone would seem to put the kibosh on this deal before it ever gets out the door, IMHO. But ASSUMING that the European NATO partners actually fund four birds at $195,000,000 USD EACH, are they going to fund the spare parts? Are they going to fund the constant training? Are they going to fund the maintenance? All of that has to be considered - and so far, the continental nations have shown NO desire whatsoever to do those sort of things. The RAF, which owns IIRC about 10 of them has done what it takes to keep them up and running. I just cannot see NATO doing the same.

THEN of course, we can discuss NATO's willingness to put $200 million dollar assets in harm's way...
Boeing has said that it will have to shutdown the C-17 manufacturing line unless it receives three new aircraft orders. The press release doesnt specifically say NATO intends to buy new aircraft but since NATO is negotiating with Boeing, thats a reasonable assumption. This contract may keep the line open.

And thats good. The C-17 is an absolutely essential airplane for military operations and large-scale humanitarian relief operations. The C-17 is expensive, but it can carry large payloads, has a long range, and can operate from short, relatively unimproved runways. The initial four-plane squadron would be very useful in a Darfur-type operation.

Posted by Mike Kozlowski 2006-09-14 09:36|| || Front Page|| [4 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 are they going to fund the spare parts? Are they going to fund the constant training?

That's why they'll be parked next to an American base. Pardon me chaps, love to fly the boys down south for a mission, but seem to be a bit light on the left frame actuator, mind lending us one? And you don't mind if o'Helmut here flies along in the co-pilot seat on your next run to pick up dog sh!t out of Hong Kong would you?

And don't tell me you don't have anyone in your ~~extended~~ family who's like that :)

Posted by Flavinter Elmins4612 2006-09-14 11:29|| 2006-09-14 11:29|| Front Page Top

#2 It's worth it to keep the line open.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-09-14 11:32|| 2006-09-14 11:32|| Front Page Top

#3 Took the words right outta my keyboard, NS.

It is comical watching the phoney EU silliness regards military affairs, especially their hysterical "Rapid Reaction" thing.

Slogan: The EU. Thumbing a lift to the world's hotspots.

LOL. A joke only a Kool Aid Tranzi comedian could love. Seems they're only serious about being the UN's favorite money pump. Those "peacekeeping" missions are, apparently, pretty profitable affairs. Just another way to dip into the honeypot that the US and Japan keeps refilling.

Only the recently active hardball NATO combat troops in Afghanistan deter me from writing off the UK and Canada as military allies. Otherwise, I'd be happy to write them off for good.

NATO, as something worthy of the cash we pump into it, seems to me to be terminal, however. We could leverage our input far better with simple "Is you in or is you out?" bilateral agreements between democracies that actually want to survive. Germany? Belgium? France? Etc? Military allies? Puhleeze. If I'm off-base, then whack me appropriately. I'm not a NATO expert, or even a military expert, though I did hump it for a few years in the Green Machine. NATO just seems to be 20% real and 80% bullshit.

Didn't some ask today or yesterday if there were any "international" orgs that were worth a damn? Good on 'em - I echo the question and feel the same. God we waste money and resources on these things like it grew on trees...

Posted by flyover 2006-09-14 12:30|| 2006-09-14 12:30|| Front Page Top

#4 Still missing 2,500 troops for Afghanistan......

Posted by newc">newc 2006-09-14 13:22|| 2006-09-14 13:22|| Front Page Top

#5 Make that 1,500 troops.

Posted by Rafael 2006-09-14 15:43|| 2006-09-14 15:43|| Front Page Top

#6 I agree too, NS, if it keeps the Boeing line open. However, it's time that Europe began kicking down substantially greater contributions to NATO. America shielded Europe from Soviet invasion throughout the Cold War and it's time for them to return the favor. Not that I expect these anti-American ingrates to do anything remotely approaching it, just saying ...

Posted by Zenster 2006-09-14 16:25|| 2006-09-14 16:25|| Front Page Top

21:23 Private Joker
23:59 GORT
23:55 Hupuck Hupaigum2230
23:42 Zenster
23:37 muck4doo
23:36 Zenster
23:31 Zenster
23:23 Zenster
23:22 FOTSGreg
23:18 Zenster
23:14 Thoth
23:10 CrazyFool
23:10 FOTSGreg
22:55 Barbara Skolaut
22:55 anonymous2u
22:52 FOTSGreg
22:50 Barbara Skolaut
22:50 Frank G
22:49 Barbara Skolaut
22:49 Lancasters Over Dresden
22:47 DMFD
22:44 Barbara Skolaut
22:43 Anguper Hupomosing9418
22:42 milford421