Royal Australian Air Force [RAAF] News, Discussions and Updates
This is a discussion on Royal Australian Air Force [RAAF] News, Discussions and Updates within the Air Force & Aviation forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Originally Posted by robsta83
Well it is semi-official the C-27's are to be cut from the USAF inventory I can ...
Well it is semi-official the C-27's are to be cut from the USAF inventory I can only imagine that they will on sell them to their allies, another cream puff deal coming our way perhaps?
When the F111 was delayed the RAAF leased F4's from the USAF.
What would be the outcome if the RAAF offered to assist the USAF budget by leasing B2b's until the F35 was in production.
The RAAF a recripient of B2b's prior to them going into scheduled deep maintenance.
Airframe ownership to remain with the USAF, with perhaps 12 A/c operated by the RAAF? Fleet rotation between the USAF and the RAAF over say a two year term.
When the F111 was delayed the RAAF leased F4's from the USAF.
What would be the outcome if the RAAF offered to assist the USAF budget by leasing B2b's until the F35 was in production.
The RAAF a recripient of B2b's prior to them going into scheduled deep maintenance.
Airframe ownership to remain with the USAF, with perhaps 12 A/c operated by the RAAF? Fleet rotation between the USAF and the RAAF over say a two year term.
A pipe dream = will never happen
.
.
Do you mean B-1b's by any chance? There is no aircraft in the US inventory that I am aware of known as the B2b...
If you mean B-1B, why on Earth WOULD we lease them and then only for 2 years? What possibly impact on the US Economy would leasing 12x B-1B's have for only 2 years?
Why would we replace extant tactical fighter capability with a strategic bomber?
Originally Posted by robsta83 View Post
Well it is semi-official the C-27's are to be cut from the USAF inventory I can only imagine that they will on sell them to their allies, another cream puff deal coming our way perhaps?
We might even be able to afford to equip the squadrons properly then. Does anyone beside me find the number of BLA's (10) to be an unusual number of aircraft for an Airforce capability?
It is official that the C27Js are being cut. I thought it a bit unusual about you only getting 10, but then realised that you only had 14 Bou. We had I think about 10 Andovers which haven't been replaced. Our polies have put any decision off until 2015 DWP but with the USAF C27Js being given the flick thye might have a rethink at cheap ones. I thought that you would have got closer to 15 - 20 max considering the ops you are running at the moment and intentions your government have.
It is official that the C27Js are being cut. I thought it a bit unusual about you only getting 10, but then realised that you only had 14 Bou. We had I think about 10 Andovers which haven't been replaced. Our polies have put any decision off until 2015 DWP but with the USAF C27Js being given the flick thye might have a rethink at cheap ones. I thought that you would have got closer to 15 - 20 max considering the ops you are running at the moment and intentions your government have.
Normal airlift squadron size in the RAAF is 12 aircraft in total (historically based on the C-130 and DHC-4), which is why I find the number for BLA odd.
We originally ordered a total of 25 aircraft (24x operated with 1 replacement for a lost aircraft) between No. 35 and No. 38 Squadrons nominally operating 12 aircraft each (though lesser numbers of aircraft were available inevitably with maintenance issues).
This number dwindled to 21 over the years with lost aircraft until the fleet was downsized to 14 in 1991 and eventually consolidated into a single squadron operating the type - No.38 squadron.
I know the BLA numbers were generated out of the Airlift study conducted by ADF but a single squadron of 10 aircraft, seems an odd number to me...
Normal airlift squadron size in the RAAF is 12 aircraft in total (historically based on the C-130 and DHC-4), which is why I find the number for BLA odd.
We originally ordered a total of 25 aircraft (24x operated with 1 replacement for a lost aircraft) between No. 35 and No. 38 Squadrons nominally operating 12 aircraft each (though lesser numbers of aircraft were available inevitably with maintenance issues).
This number dwindled to 21 over the years with lost aircraft until the fleet was downsized to 14 in 1991 and eventually consolidated into a single squadron operating the type - No.38 squadron.
I know the BLA numbers were generated out of the Airlift study conducted by ADF but a single squadron of 10 aircraft, seems an odd number to me...
Me too AD but no more odd than 5 KC30s, 6 Wedgetails or 4 (originally) C17s.
IMO, multiples of 4 make sense for fighter and strike squadrons because tactically they have generally operated in 4 plane flights and 12 is probably the smallest self sufficient unit that is economical to support. When the RAAF deployed FA18s to the second gulf war the squadron took 14 aircraft ( I guess 2 were spares to ensure 12 would be available for operations). For transport and maritime squadrons I suspect the number is a compromise determined by looking at the tasks to be performed and the available budget. With bean counters exercising so much influence in defence circles I predict we will continue see 'odd' numbers of aircraft odered for particular roles.
Increased operational tempo would required an increased refuelling capability. I don't think anyone has ever suggested that 5x KC-30's are sufficient to refuel our airforce for any level of operation under any circumstances, but they are sufficient to do the job currently required of them (or will be when they reach IOC anyway).
One tanker per TACAIR squadron is the pretty usual ratio in combat operations.
USAF has a far higher number of tankers per TACAIR squadrons because they also provide IFR in bulk to strategic bombers and strategic transport. We’ve never had the former (no matter what anyone says about the F-111) but we now have the later. The C-17s can fly from Australia to the other side of the world carrying a C-130 load. But to do so with a C-17 load requires IFR or a stop.
The Wedgetail and P-8 both have boom receptacles and can take advantage of IFR. They won’t be staying aloft for 48 hour missions but you can get a good boost especially in the far north when they will be struggling to get aloft when fully loaded with gear and bombs and the like. The other big potential user of IFR for the RAAF in the lifetime of the KC-30 is UAVs…
One tanker per TACAIR squadron is the pretty usual ratio in combat operations.
USAF has a far higher number of tankers per TACAIR squadrons because they also provide IFR in bulk to strategic bombers and strategic transport. We’ve never had the former (no matter what anyone says about the F-111) but we now have the later. The C-17s can fly from Australia to the other side of the world carrying a C-130 load. But to do so with a C-17 load requires IFR or a stop.
The Wedgetail and P-8 both have boom receptacles and can take advantage of IFR. They won’t be staying aloft for 48 hour missions but you can get a good boost especially in the far north when they will be struggling to get aloft when fully loaded with gear and bombs and the like. The other big potential user of IFR for the RAAF in the lifetime of the KC-30 is UAVs…
Thats because the USAF might have sayyyyy 8-10 SQN's operating out of a base. So if you have that you have a bunch of tankers supporting them, if one drops out you maybe lose 12-15% of the force and have adequate redundancy. What you are talking about with the RAAF if one drops out you lose 25%, and if they are operating from dispartate locations you lose 50%, which is a big deal (i.e you could end up scrubbing the mission*)
*Caveat - too many factors to go into - range of aircraft, endurance required, mission required, operating theatre, etc
Personally I reckon 2 more tankers would be nice...
Can we get by begging off the USAF... you bet.
Will 5 tankers keep the ADF Self Sufficient in the way you are talking. Its a gamble....
Thats because the USAF might have sayyyyy 8-10 SQN's operating out of a base. So if you have that you have a bunch of tankers supporting them, if one drops out you maybe lose 12-15% of the force and have adequate redundancy. What you are talking about with the RAAF if one drops out you lose 25%, and if they are operating from dispartate locations you lose 50%, which is a big deal (i.e you could end up scrubbing the mission*)
*Caveat - too many factors to go into - range of aircraft, endurance required, mission required, operating theatre, etc
Personally I reckon 2 more tankers would be nice...
Can we get by begging off the USAF... you bet.
Will 5 tankers keep the ADF Self Sufficient in the way you are talking. Its a gamble....
A report on the modernisation of the USAF tanker fleet. Some aspect of it can be put into perspective with the RAAF own tanker fleet.
I found it to be very informative, I would hate to be part of the planning staff working out a very complex but highly desirable part of air operations.
Hi all,
I've been following the site for a while and found it really informative. The talk about helicopters makes me wonder about the MRH-90.
What's happening with the MRH-90 helicopters. At one time there was a great fanfare about these vehicles arriving, then there were "issues", then the project was on the Projects of Concern list and now nothing.
From what I can gather, defence is buying 40+ units, but is this whole project going the way of the Sea Sprite project? What happens from here?
Can Australia cancel the order if this helicopters are no good?
What other options are there if the MRH-90 is a failure and the Blackhawks need replacing?
Probably the biggest question is why is Australia in this situation at all? Shouldn't Defence have been looking at a more reliable vehicle, maybe something already in service with other nations?
Well I think some alternatives are Merlins, Sea Knights, MH-53's and this one won't happen but maybe a modernised Sea King.
Hi all,
I've been following the site for a while and found it really informative. The talk about helicopters makes me wonder about the MRH-90.
What's happening with the MRH-90 helicopters. At one time there was a great fanfare about these vehicles arriving, then there were "issues", then the project was on the Projects of Concern list and now nothing.
From what I can gather, defence is buying 40+ units, but is this whole project going the way of the Sea Sprite project? What happens from here?
Can Australia cancel the order if this helicopters are no good?
What other options are there if the MRH-90 is a failure and the Blackhawks need replacing?
Probably the biggest question is why is Australia in this situation at all? Shouldn't Defence have been looking at a more reliable vehicle, maybe something already in service with other nations?
Australia is not in a situation of its own making like it was with the SH2G Seasprites. The problems with the NH90 are manufactuer problems creating delays. there are some prooblems cited by the ADF with the floors apparently not strong enough for the average soldiers boots. The Germans are reporting the same problem. There was also apparently a problem with the engines and there have been long delivery delays. In NZs case the manufacture is having to pay for delivery by AN124 from France 2 helos at a time. Contrary to what donut thinks, this is a brand new model with it's usual share (probably a bit more) of teething problems. Having said that it is design and manufacture by committee but it is early days at the moment. There are other helos with similar capabilities but older technology.
Well I think some alternatives are Merlins, Sea Knights, MH-53's and this one won't happen but maybe a modernised Sea King.
Er, try the aircraft that was short-listed along with MRH-90, namely the UH-60M and you might get close...
And if the MRH-90 were to fall over completely and RAN needed a new helicopter to cover the former Sea King role, then it could take it's pick of MH-60S Sierra's or the new MH-60R "lite" minus most of the gear that takes up all the room in the cabin.
It would mean more cash has been wasted on helos but this time at least, the blame lies squarely with the Government of the day, rather than the Services that recommended the US product in the first place...
We kind of are. The problems with the NH-90 were known at the time it was selected. It was assumed, they would be over-come in development.
Despite this, Army Aviation still wanted UH-60M Blackhawk, but Government wanted the assembly line at Australian Aerospace to continue.
So we got MRH-90...
I wasn't quite sure but donut who doesn't take hints and knows nothing had wound me up, had originally answered the question and I didn't want to confuse the issue for driftwood. The difference betwen the NH90 purchase & the Seasprite I was getting at was the RAN wanting indigenous specific sensors etc that for some reason would not integrate with the helo. Might have been a blessing in disguise because we are now at a MLU and decision has to be made about MLU or replacement because the service from Kaman not the best and parts hard to get. RNZN have orphan fleet. Hopefully the NZG will bite the bullet and buy us some Romeos.
I wasn't quite sure but donut who doesn't take hints and knows nothing had wound me up, had originally answered the question and I didn't want to confuse the issue for driftwood. The difference betwen the NH90 purchase & the Seasprite I was getting at was the RAN wanting indigenous specific sensors etc that for some reason would not integrate with the helo. Might have been a blessing in disguise because we are now at a MLU and decision has to be made about MLU or replacement because the service from Kaman not the best and parts hard to get. RNZN have orphan fleet. Hopefully the NZG will bite the bullet and buy us some Romeos.
Would it be fair to say that the RNZN only bought the Seasprites because Australia had. Seems we might have dudded both you and us.
Would it be fair to say that the RNZN only bought the Seasprites because Australia had. Seems we might have dudded both you and us.
I could be mistaken but I believe NZ originally selected the Super Lynx but defered the contract pending Australias choice between the Super Lynx and Super Seasprite. Hindsight Lynx would have been the way to go.
I must ask why we are discussing ship based helicopters on the RAAF thread though?
