Perhaps the the intention of keeping Super Hornets in service until the 2030s is related to the government decision to accelerate development of the MQ-28. The government made a big deal about the Ghost Bat in the DSR. The DSR made it clear that the government was interested in joint development of the MQ-28 with the US. Not proceding with a third tranche of F-35s opens up many more options in the 2030s.
Royal Australian Air Force [RAAF] News, Discussions and Updates
The issue I see with this is the mid 30s is 10 years away. We would have a 10 year lead time realistically fir any crewed aircraft to team with the MQ28 in addition to existing airframes. So it’s seems a bit dejavu here that the govs positions Is wait and see what comes up and then make a decision..if at all. Remind anyone of naval procurement in 06-13?
Aardvark144
Active Member
20 new C130J-30 for the RAAF officially announced this morning along with some reporting on ABC RN that an additional 2 KC30 will also be announced in the near future.
Whilst the new C130s was no surprise, will be interesting to see if the additional KC30s will come to pass. Whilst a fleet of 9 was discussed a number of years ago, most would agree that aircraft 8 and 9 were off the table in recent times.
Whilst the new C130s was no surprise, will be interesting to see if the additional KC30s will come to pass. Whilst a fleet of 9 was discussed a number of years ago, most would agree that aircraft 8 and 9 were off the table in recent times.
Last edited:
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
Australia – C-130J-30 Aircraft | Defense Security Cooperation Agency (dsca.mil)
This looks like the formal ordering of the aircraft announced in Nov 2022 and is 4 aircraft less than the original announcement. 2 more KC30 might be a replacement for the extra 4 C-130Js but they will be either ageing 2nd hand aircraft of the same vintage as the other 7 or newer aircraft that will have significant differences to the other 7.
Aardvark144
Active Member
Agree. Will be interesting if the additional KC30s are confirmed. Sourcing frames will be problematic as QF will be off the table as they are flogging their A330s and need more and the last thing we need is two different subsets.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
A330 Family | Airbus Passenger Aircraft
I wonder if Australia may not have been better off in the long run looking at 9 brand new KC-30s based on the A330neo, the 7 in RAAF service now will be close to 20yo by the time the new aircraft arrive, have reasonable re-sale value, more supportable due to airlines replacing older A330s with neo's.
Happy to be corrected but I'm not aware of the neo having been converted to the MRTT yet. Is it even offered as an option by Airbus at the moment? Cheers.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
Good point, Airbus are still selling the A330-200/300 family though, so maybe not and I am making assumptions.
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Time to roll the clock back a bit, back to when news of replacement Hercs started being reported in the media.
ADM Magazine reported back in December 2021 (back when it was the ScoMo LNP Government):
www.australiandefence.com.au
It was reported that LM has been requested to supply information on 30 x C-130J aircraft.
That request was broken down into 24 x C-130J-30 and 6 x KC-130J.
My understanding is that KC-130s are based on the standard fuselage, not the stretched -30 fuselage, ok?
Roll forward to DSCA request by the Albo ALP Government in November 2022 and the request was for 24 x C130J-30 aircraft only (no mention of the 6 x KC-130J aircraft).
Again, to make it clear, C-130J-30 and KC-130J are two different aircraft.
Today the Albo ALP Government announces 20 x C-130J-30 aircraft.
From December 2021 to today that is a reduction of 10 aircraft (6 x KC-130J and 4 x C-130J-30).
A bit more cost cutting by Albo and his mates?
Hmmm......
ADM Magazine reported back in December 2021 (back when it was the ScoMo LNP Government):
More Hercules for RAAF? - Australian Defence Magazine
Speaking at the Dubai Air Show in mid-November, Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Executive VP Greg Ulmer said that the RAAF has requested details for the supply of 30 C-130J Hercules. However, Ulmer’s spec...
www.australiandefence.com.au
It was reported that LM has been requested to supply information on 30 x C-130J aircraft.
That request was broken down into 24 x C-130J-30 and 6 x KC-130J.
My understanding is that KC-130s are based on the standard fuselage, not the stretched -30 fuselage, ok?
Roll forward to DSCA request by the Albo ALP Government in November 2022 and the request was for 24 x C130J-30 aircraft only (no mention of the 6 x KC-130J aircraft).
Again, to make it clear, C-130J-30 and KC-130J are two different aircraft.
Today the Albo ALP Government announces 20 x C-130J-30 aircraft.
From December 2021 to today that is a reduction of 10 aircraft (6 x KC-130J and 4 x C-130J-30).
A bit more cost cutting by Albo and his mates?
Hmmm......
John Newman
The Bunker Group
If you compare the age of the RAAF KC-30A fleet to the USAF KC-135 fleet, the KC-30As are mere pups.
My understanding is the last new KC-135 was delivered in 1965, eg, they are 50++ years old, and that’s the youngest airframes too.
The RAAF KC-30A fleet are mere teenagers in comparison.
Anyway....
Back to the 2016 LNP DWP, it was suggested that an 8th and 9th KC-30A was being considered. Unfortunately by the 2020 LNP DSU, those plans were abandoned.
But, all was not lost....
The Government made it clear that the eventual replacement fleet would be expanded.
There is (was?), a project named ‘KC-30A Replacement’ planned time commence around 2033 through to the 2040s, with a budget of $17.5b to $26.2b.
That is a huge amount of dollars planned to be spent.
Anyway....
Let’s wait and see if the rumour of the Albo ALP Government adding 2 x KC-30A comes true.
For ease of commonality and support, I would imagine the RAAF would look to obtaining airframes of a similar age and configuration to the existing fleet.
The two second hand airframes (6th and 7th KC-30A), were ex Qantas (similar age and configuration of the five RAAF new built airframes), the ‘potential’ 8th and 9th might also be from that same production period too (Qantas still operate 16 x A330-200).
Extrapolating a bit.
The Ghostbat would likely be easier, initially to integrate with the Rhino, because of the back seater. Rhino would also provide critical mass to support Growler going forward.
NGRAD is underway but years off, this would be an awesome replacement for Rhino going forward but would not happen if Rhino had been replaced by F-35. Same if the B-21 decision is reversed.
To be brutally honest, while I agree MRH has to be replaced, I wonder at the wisdom of replacing Tiger with Apache when transformational technologies are so close.
Opportunity cost is a thing, as is block obsolescence. Every cent we spend on replacing something that is still useful, survivable, sustainable, and above all, capable, especially when it is already successfully complementing newer capabilities, is a cent that is not available for something better that is just around the corner.
If we replace everything we have right now, with something similar but new, we are just setting up our next block obsolescence in two or three decades. We are locking ourselves into existing capabilities for a couple of decades to come.
The Ghostbat would likely be easier, initially to integrate with the Rhino, because of the back seater. Rhino would also provide critical mass to support Growler going forward.
NGRAD is underway but years off, this would be an awesome replacement for Rhino going forward but would not happen if Rhino had been replaced by F-35. Same if the B-21 decision is reversed.
To be brutally honest, while I agree MRH has to be replaced, I wonder at the wisdom of replacing Tiger with Apache when transformational technologies are so close.
Opportunity cost is a thing, as is block obsolescence. Every cent we spend on replacing something that is still useful, survivable, sustainable, and above all, capable, especially when it is already successfully complementing newer capabilities, is a cent that is not available for something better that is just around the corner.
If we replace everything we have right now, with something similar but new, we are just setting up our next block obsolescence in two or three decades. We are locking ourselves into existing capabilities for a couple of decades to come.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #9,232
There is, of course, a flipside to such arguments. If AusGov were to delay the replacement (or upgrading, as the case may be) of kit in favour of "something better that is just around the corner..." there is the distinct potential for in service kit to no longer fit for service, whilst the potential replacement kit remains just potential.
Take what the US is planning on replacing the Apache with as an example. There is work being done on developing a version of the V-280 Valor which was selected as the FVL winner, to provide an attack capability, though the USMC aviation would be fine with a dual lift/attack version. However, the US Army which is running the programme apparently wants distinct versions and whilst the V-280 has been selected as the FVL, the different version for attack is still in development. Part of the reason this is important is that the V-280 lift design, which already has been racking up flight hours in testing, is scheduled to have the first units entering US service in Q1 2030 as it begins replacing the UH-60 Blackhawk.
If the already existing design which is still in the development and testing phase is not planned to have production units entering service for another ~seven years, the if an attack version is successfully developed, the first such production units would likely not begin entering US service for at least a couple of years later. This could easily mean that an Apache replacement might not start entering US service until 2033 or later, and this is assuming that the programme does not encounter significant developmental and/or funding issues, or even just get cancelled outright. If it likely that the US would not see such a replacement start entering service for another decade (or more) then it could easily be a few more years after that before production slots for an Australian order might become available. This could easily mean that such a replacement for Australia might not become available until the mid-2030's and IMO it would be more likely to be in the late 2030's.
Would it be realistic to think that the Tiger ARH's could be made to soldier on until the late 2030's, particularly given that they are in need of upgrades whilst also being too few in number?
Another way to consider this, which is an argument a number of members have raised re:Australia defence procurement in the past, is that the "perfect" solution is an enemy to "good enough". Trying to hold out for a replacement which is likely well over a decade away from being available is to try and go for the "perfect" solution.
I think there is more going on here.
The Superhornets make a lot of sense in terms of forward deployment. Until Blk IV gets rolled out, superhornet is still the main strike platform. Main/only maritime strike platform with LRASM. Main EW platform.
Sure eventually the F-35 will be able to do some of that pretty well, perhaps 2030-2035. We already have the superhornets doing a pretty good job, BLK III is pretty good, and we have 72 F-35s.
Even if we ordered more F-35's, we are still having to wait for blk IV, we are still having to wait behind everyone else on the F-35 que. Even then, they aren't dual engine, they aren't two seaters, they aren't on a separate logistics line. And the F-35 program still has its challenges related to costs, operational rates, spares, etc.
The US navy is in no rush to get rid of its super hornets. The USAF is in no rush for long range maritime strike and EW, both of which are marginal on a stealth platform.
The V280 program seems to be early days and lots of risk.. TBH the capable that Australia gets out of Apaches and Black hawks is likely to be pretty acceptable anyway. If and when we want to get out of them, I think others would be looking at buying them.
OldTex
Well-Known Member
The number of new C130J-30 aircraft to be delivered from 2027(ish) suggests that by slight-of-hand the C-27 Spartans might disappear from the ORBAT around that time (or perhaps from 2030). The next piece of this jigsaw puzzle will be future of the avionics upgrade project for the C-27s. While having a single platform for tactical airlift makes sense for so many reasons (logistics, training, CONOPS etc) the existence of a smaller airlifter might offer some options for Defence support within the South Pacific Forum area (think an aerial version of the Guardian class patrol vessels).
Volk
When you say - "replacing Tiger with Apache when transformational technologies"
Are these "transformational technologies"
manned or unmanned platforms?
Cheers S
I'm looking at Ukraine and the extremely challenging environment for attack and reconnaissance helicopters. Talking heads rave about the end of MBTs but I get the impression that attack helicopters are in more danger going forward.
Yes the dance of words and expectation.
Never really means much until a contract is signed and better still, the platform actually enters service.
The C130J-30 is a safe choice.
the RAAF is very comfortable with the aircraft and the Hercules family have proved popular around the world for many decades.
There is much to like about the aircraft.
Yet for all the upgrades, it is still a 1950's "sized " aircraft doing logistics with 21st century expectations.
I would of thought it was well and truly time to move on to a more appropriate platform going forward.
As to the KC-30A numbers, they will will hopefully grow to at least nine aircraft sooner rather than later.
For the future, airborne refuelling demands will only increase in the years ahead as unmanned platforms demand this service. .
An airborne refuelling capability is something that all of our future medium transport aircraft should of had as a standard option integral to the aircraft.
Mission flexibility is important.
So C130J-30; how many varieties of Army's vehicles and equipment will you be able to carry going forward.
A safe platform looking for a mission!
In my opinion !
Cheers S
As formidable as they are, helicopters are still relatively slow beasts.
I can see the need for logistics. A flying truck has its place in appropriate circumstances.
Attack, however dictates proximity to the front line.
If your offensive weapons have greater range than your adversary's then your having a good day.
I feel this space is changing rapidly.
Japan maybe correct in this regard,
Paradoxically I can see the benefit of the Blackhawk operating in the old bushranger gunship role.
Not in a near peer scenario, but rather in a insurgency type landscape.
Would I swap out Apache numbers for additional Blackhawks?
Well maybe that's something to think about.
A much more flexible platform
Cheers S
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
IIRC, the A330-200 used the wing from the A340. This allowed the plumbing for the outboard engines (A330 doesn’t have the extra outboard engines) to be used for refueling, a significant cost savings. Not sure if newer models had different wings. The A330 neo certainly does.