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 Aussie Digger
By a second engine, only on the port wing perhaps? That way, if the port ...
By a second engine, only on the port wing perhaps? That way, if the port side engine fails, there's a spare.
It's win, win.
At least folding planking. We wouldn't want it looking stupid, when the C-27's weren't being employed from it...
Speaking of folding, that's how we could solve the issue of fitting C-27's into the hangar. We'd need at least 2x folds per wing and it would operate in a similar way to the method by which one folds up a tarpaulin...
Oh, and the tail would need one too. Given it's 31 feet or so high...
Since we are talking fantasy and we don't need large helicopters, why don't we redesign the vessel with an angled flight deck, trade some of the of the F-35A's for C's, add a catapult and bingo
We have an amphibous aircaft carrier ................... which is too restricted to do anything well (and probably too small for F-35B;s)
I'm assuming nothing about bridge-building knowledge. Some rivers are too wide for bridgelayers. Bridging equipment is rare, & not necessarily where it's wanted. It can get destroyed by enemy action, for example. Building or repairing bridges without bridgelayers takes a long time. Boats aren't necessarily available (those pesky adversaries tend to remember to remove or sink them), or capable of carrying the loads you want to transport where you need to transport them.
This was one scenario. There are many others. And, although I do not wish to be impolite, your last comment could apply to anything heavy lift helicopters might be used for, so let us change it to "imagine the burden on a force if its heavy lift element is being used".
I was refering to the infantries ability to build rafts, I was referring to the fact your heavy lift element has to spend time going to and from the rivers and the rest of the army is advancing, heavy lift helo's or any helo's for that matter are used to supply frontline forces with their supplies. When you have that element tied up in one spot you are hampering the rest if your frontlines supply.
I was refering to the infantries ability to build rafts, I was referring to the fact your heavy lift element has to spend time going to and from the rivers and the rest of the army is advancing, heavy lift helo's or any helo's for that matter are used to supply frontline forces with their supplies. When you have that element tied up in one spot you are hampering the rest if your frontlines supply.
The ability to build rafts is covered thoroughly by my last post, but I'll re-state it in different terms.
Building rafts takes time. What if you don't have it? It needs a waterway calm enough for them, it needs accessible loading points, it needs materials. Rafts have to be powered, unless you have both shallow & still water (engines & propellors needed - what if you don't have them?), or hauled across (what if it's too wide, or you don't have strong enough & long enough cables?). Etc., etc.
Of course your heavy lift helicopters have to spend time going backwards & forwards. But this is their job.
If you're advancing (what's postulated in this scenario), with armour & artillery, then I doubt very much you're supplying your front line by helicopter, except at the margins, for urgent, relatively low weight stuff. Sitting in a garrison in the middle of bandit country in Afghanistan & having helicopters fly everything in is atypical. Most of the time, just getting the fuel for the helicopters up to the point where they can pick it up ties up more logistics than the stuff they haul, so why not cut out the middleman?
Helicopters are needed when nothing else will do - e.g. for crossing obstacles, & getting into difficult places. That's the point I was trying to get across to rjmaz, by constructing a scenario where nothing but a heavy lift helicopter could do the job. You've countered by complaining it would take them away from doing what a lorry can do.
Helicopters are needed when nothing else will do - e.g. for crossing obstacles, & getting into difficult places. That's the point I was trying to get across to rjmaz, by constructing a scenario where nothing but a heavy lift helicopter could do the job.
I could construct a scenario where nothing but an F-22 could do the job.
I could construct a scenario where nothing but a C-5M Galaxy could do the job.
So we should buy the F-22/C-5M according to your logic. I wouldn't buy either of them as they both provide excesive overlap with existing systems and operating an extra aircraft type would reduce overall capability with any given budget. Not operating the Chinook will sacrifice its few unique missions, i've admitted this many times now, but the overall increase is worth the sacrifice.
Anyone who would take 3 Chinooks over 12 C-27J for the same money either has no idea or are avoiding picking the overall superior 12 C-27J option as it would prove its better value for money.
Anyone who would take 3 Chinooks over 12 C-27J for the same money either has no idea or are avoiding picking the overall superior 12 C-27J option as it would prove its better value for money.
You may have missed that post. I even highlighted the key points in bold.
Or they simply disagree with. It does not mean you are right. Noting a C-27J needs a runway (albeit shorter than many other aircraft) it still means it is constrained as to where it can land and the landing site needs to be secure. Helos are flexible in this regard and the Chook allows large load to be put where they are needed in, as has been proved, reasaonlly hot tactical situations. If urgently needed support was required that would max out a MRH (either in space, laod and/or hot-high load) the I wouel hate to be the poor grunt that waits for vehicle to drive to their assistance from landing strip that coule be many hours away.......... not forgetting the mass of the vehcile and its fuel is a deduction from the aircraft delivey capability in any case.
We need a decent tactical STOL transport, decent heavy VTOL support and air mobility for troops (MRH). Your suggestion short changes to ground force in a critical area.
I would love to see the C-27J selcted as the Bou replacement, and would expect that this may happen. But I would never advocate killing off the chooks for it. Lets face it they are a differnet part of the budget in any case.
Hey I never said I agreed with this article. I know the F-35 will be a capable fighter and 4-8 AMRAAMs and 2 AIM-9s and a 25mm cannon is more than enough. I was just showing the article to see what people think of it thats all, did not mean any harm.
Sorry if I was abrupt there F-15 (wasn't in a good mood that day), as you can see from GF's post they don't deserve comment and I was just trying to do my part help keep the topics respectable as I enjoy reading the consistent high quality comments of this site.
I could construct a scenario where nothing but an F-22 could do the job.
I could construct a scenario where nothing but a C-5M Galaxy could do the job.
So we should buy the F-22/C-5M according to your logic. I wouldn't buy either of them as they both provide excesive overlap with existing systems and operating an extra aircraft type would reduce overall capability with any given budget. Not operating the Chinook will sacrifice its few unique missions, i've admitted this many times now, but the overall increase is worth the sacrifice.
Anyone who would take 3 Chinooks over 12 C-27J for the same money either has no idea or are avoiding picking the overall superior 12 C-27J option as it would prove its better value for money.
You may have missed that post. I even highlighted the key points in bold.
I agree with swerve but on a slightly different reasoning.
Say a motor bike is the best way to wieve through traffic getting to work each day. You use your motor bike 5 times weeks but would be using use a car on weekends to make life easier for shopping and picking freinds occasionally.
Now would you buy another few motorbikes over a car becasue you use the motorbikes more often and they are cheaper. No, as long a one motorbike is sufficient to do the job the purchase on the car for its more specialised roles and increased cost instead of two new motorboikes is justified. Same with the above. If 6 C27's are able to meet the minimum requirements of the airforce then why buy the extra wanted capability when we are lacking in another area that can best be done by a C-47.
Probably not the best example or wording but I hope you see my point.
Concerning the CH-47 order I would rather like to see a Squadron of 12 for Army aviation+2 for Training+ 2 Replacements. I do not know why but the idea to have CH47 for Special Forces seems rather strange because there Number would be to low to have any significance about how many G Models are we talking sth like 3? You have to take into account that 1/3 rule which would mean that only one could be deployed.
And add 16 MRH would be also good as it would give the Army another Squadron+ some more for Training +some for the Navy.
And what I do not get is why nobody in the ADF considers to purchase more Tigers to bring them on the same Aircraft Numbers as a British or US Aviation Bn(24 Airframes) or German Attack Aviation Regiment. (32 Airframes)
Concerning the CH-47 order I would rather like to see a Squadron of 12 for Army aviation+2 for Training+ 2 Replacements. I do not know why but the idea to have CH47 for Special Forces seems rather strange because there Number would be to low to have any significance about how many G Models are we talking sth like 3? You have to take into account that 1/3 rule which would mean that only one could be deployed.
And add 16 MRH would be also good as it would give the Army another Squadron+ some more for Training +some for the Navy.
And what I do not get is why nobody in the ADF considers to purchase more Tigers to bring them on the same Aircraft Numbers as a British or US Aviation Bn(24 Airframes) or German Attack Aviation Regiment. (32 Airframes)
It would certainly be nice to have an extra 10 Chinooks, 16 MRH-90s and additional Tigers but with the present budget tightening it would be a difficult sell to the government. I agree that more of all of these helos are needed. along with additional naval helos to replace the cancelled Seasprites. I've always thought that 22 Tigers were insufficient. It is a bit ironic that the ADF originally had 12 Chinooks before making what seemed to me to be a very strange decision to get rid of them.
IIRC the Budget is steadly rising or is everything consumed for the Naval Projects and for Operations?
Not really sure on that one. Despite extending the average 3%p/a increase to 2017/18 for the ADO budget, it appears that there is some turbulence in coming up. The White Paper gives ample scope to screw the ADF and there is much pessimism in the air around Russell.
If you keep asking questions like this you will have GF saying: "We're going to get screwed. I don't mean to seem mysterious, but I can't talk about it and I can't talk about why.........". Suffice to say, give peace a chance, cause if it comes to war they're making sure we won't have a prayer! On a more serious note, it's not exactly as though the RAAF is hardly done by....... 16B F-35s, 3.5B Wedgies, MRTTS, 2.2B C-17's, 6.6B SBugs etc etc etc.....But another 2 Wedgies, 4 C-17s and 3 MRTTs would be nice.....
If you keep asking questions like this you will have GF saying: "We're going to get screwed. I don't mean to seem mysterious, but I can't talk about it and I can't talk about why.........".
Every week for the last month we've had email alerts and reminders that if we speak out of shop, to journalists etc.... then we risk running foul of Commonwealth Law and/or sections of Civil Law.
We are not to talk about things in the ADF that are happening.
There's a clear message there. If you know anyone who is in Defence and who reads their mail you will know it's so.
This attitude and warning to all has been escalated beyond normal comments from the headshed.
I'lll be stuffed if I'm going to jeopardise my job just to give a public forum some inside juice.
Believe me, the threats are real.
________________ A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
But another 2 Wedgies, 4 C-17s and 3 MRTTs would be nice.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Navor86
And add 16 MRH would be also good as it would give the Army another Squadron+ some more for Training +some for the Navy.
And what I do not get is why nobody in the ADF considers to purchase more Tigers to bring them on the same Aircraft Numbers as a British or US Aviation Bn(24 Airframes) or German Attack Aviation Regiment. (32 Airframes)
And who's going to fly and maintain all these extra airframes???
Can we please have a reality check and get back on track.
________________
Lead, follow, or get out of the way!
Every week for the last month we've had email alerts and reminders that if we speak out of shop, to journalists etc.... then we risk running foul of Commonwealth Law and/or sections of Civil Law.
We are not to talk about things in the ADF that are happening.
There's a clear message there. If you know anyone who is in Defence and who reads their mail you will know it's so.
This attitude and warning to all has been escalated beyond normal comments from the headshed.
I'lll be stuffed if I'm going to jeopardise my job just to give a public forum some inside juice.
Believe me, the threats are real.
I don't think that Defence is the only government department generating these sorts of messages. There seems to be an unprecedented level of control being generated from the PM's department. There have been some embarrassing leaks from some departments so some level of information management is possibly justified but I don't know how Defence is going to run effectively if every minor decision has to be vetted and ratified by the PM! I understand your concerns GF and I sympathise. It might also explain why a number of our usual posters have been fairly quiet lately or, if they have posted, have appeared to be very careful with what they have said.
However, that doesn't stop the rest of us from asking hard questions about the apparent stalling of, and in some cases back pedalling with, the present defence procurement program. We've seen Seasprite cancelled and Penguin put up for sale with no mention of replacement in either case. There has been talk about MRTTs being diverted to VIP use with no mention of replacement by additional dedicated tanker transports which has not been denied by the Defmin. There have been yet further delays with the Caribou replacement program and nothing has been said about the 3 CH-47Fs mentioned by the previous Defmin prior to the election. Just about the only order confirmed was the previously criticised Super Hornet deal (probably because the new government finally woke up to the fact that it will buy time and save money with the air combat capability program).
The chances of getting new projects like the P-8A or additional C-17s, Wedgetails or MRTTs approved by the current government is looking to me to be increasingly unlikely.
Every week for the last month we've had email alerts and reminders that if we speak out of shop, to journalists etc.... then we risk running foul of Commonwealth Law and/or sections of Civil Law.
We are not to talk about things in the ADF that are happening.
There's a clear message there. If you know anyone who is in Defence and who reads their mail you will know it's so.
This attitude and warning to all has been escalated beyond normal comments from the headshed.
I'lll be stuffed if I'm going to jeopardise my job just to give a public forum some inside juice.
Believe me, the threats are real.
Yeah, but my way of saying it was funnier.........
