Whiskey wouldn't a rebuilt H model have the same maint requirements as the J's? It's not like they are completly different airframes etc. I would suggest that the reason behin this is all to do with cost. Refurb 4 H's now rather than buying new and replace at a later date.Whiskyjack said:
If US specops only use e/h then r&d for the J for 4 planes would be contra indicated. I would love to see dash8-200 gunships perfect for Wot, perfect for shot across the bows from the air. One of the few instances of ausmil R&D I can unashamedly support.Whiskyjack said:
Our current CH-47D's are currently undergoing a rapid upgrade program to give them most of the capabilities enjoyed by MH-47 Chooks. About the only thing they'll still lack in comparison are the A2A refuelling probes and (possibly) the miniguns used on USAF models. They are gaining improved gun mounts however, probably for MAG-58 7.62mm GPMG's, if not something heavier...Whiskyjack said:
Hs have different engines, but thinking on it I think they are the same as the P3 (?).Cootamundra said:
I saw an article last year that indicated that the RAF wanted to offload 10-15 of its Js! Canada was seen as a potential customer.seantheaussie said:
Funny you should mention that! Another article in ADBR talked about the possibility of ADF aquiring more Chinooks. Again, I won't type out the entire article but here is one paragraph. " The Government is currently studying options for additional helicopters in light of a direction still to be concluded for rotary wing solutions for projects AIR9000, and AIR8000 - the future battlefield transporter/logistics system looking at what combination of new fixed-wing capabilities or additional rotary-wing aircraft might suitably replace the current Caribou transports, themselves considered by many hardliners to be irreplaceable in terms of their traditional role of re-supply into unformed or short air strips. Apart from purchasing additional upgraded or new build Chinooks or MRH90s, the closest equivalents are the C-27J & CN-235/C-295 family......"
The CASA/Spartan solution is almost a dead letter drop. Its highly unlikely to get up - esp if we buy heavies. There won't be enough green stuff to go around.cherry said:
How much more can a Carribou carry than a Chinook? And how much greater is their range over a Chook. I would think the Bou should go and extra Chooks be procured to cover the gap.cherry said:
Right, of course! Operating costs are traditionally higher for helicopters right? So based on this a replacement for the Bou is required and some chooks maybe on the horizon. Do we really need the capability of the Bou's? Will we be required to land on rough/short fields?cherry said:
Good question. I don't know how much the Caribous are used at the moment or over the past ten years or so. I do know though that the Chinooks have been used quite extensively in theatre and with only a mere 6 platforms, they must be stretched. I personally think that between another 4-6 Chooks will be/should be purchased with around 6-8 C-295/C-27J to complement them. Don't forget that with the new LHDs and future sealift ship/s (which just may be similar to the HSV Joint Venture that the US Navy operate) a large number of Chinooks could operate from these decks which would negate the fact that they have a smaller range than that of the C-295/C-27J.
The ADF will always need an ability to land in rough and short fields. Chooks are tremendous, but Caribou's are freakin amazing. They fly so slow you'd swear they're going to fall out of the sky, but somehow they don't.Cootamundra said:
ala Kopp, http://www.ausairpower.net/Precis_Benefits.pdfAussie Digger said:
In the US they are unqualified for para/air? drop , DoD wanted to cancel production but contract cancellation penalties were too high, GAO went apeshit over management of programSupe said:
The last items off an American production line make them a dead certaintity as DMO/Gov have never heard of OHPs & F-111s & so are doomed to repeat with AWD & every other acquisition they can manage.Supe said:
No mate I was serious. Why not invest minimal funds in an engine and airframe upgrade and keep them for another 20 years? Same with AP-3C's I say. We have so many funding challenges at the moment, that we simply can't afford to replace everything. Why not maximise our investment in existing, yet highly capable platforms?rossfrb_1 said:
It was all about when to sell the Hs, when the Js lose their question mark the H selling price will drop. I still wish we bought a bunch of aircraft for tanker transport conversions during the passenger drought after 9/11.Aussie Digger said:
I have to agree as well. With regards to the AP-C's I understand we need to be aware of other options but I was under the impression they had plenty of life in them yet, not to mention very good capabilities. Fair enough about the Bou's, I hadn't really though that hard about it and i presumed (dangerous I know) that to re-furb them would cost lots of $$$$$. Also very interesting to note your comments about their speed and payload, brings things back into perspective I suppose ;-0Aussie Digger said: