Royal Australian Air Force [RAAF] News, Discussions and Updates
It makes you wonder, if each C-17 delivers approximately the same capability of 4 or more C-130s, whether we are approaching the point we no longer need the C-130. I am not suggestion a C-17 only fleet but looking outside the square considering the hard use our Js have had and wondering if a further increase in C-17 numbers could be combined with rejuvinated and expanded AIR 8000 phase 2 Battlefield Airlift buy, allowing the retirement of the hercs?
Well it depends how you take it ? personally 8 x C17 would be my personal preference. To say goodbye to the Herc's is easy enough to do, when you look at it from our last 10 or so years, but taking that into account, what type of variation do we need, and in what construct do we need the capability ?
To say one C-17 takes over the job of 3/4 Herc's is not that simple ?
But as you say ? What of AIR8000 ? How does that tie into the current (kown) construct and the potential replacement ?
A C-17 can lift a hell of a lot, a long way and quite quickly and comfortably too, but there needs to be a certain critical mass in terms of overall numbers. We need to be able to conduct concurrent airlifts to different locations, which is something that a single aircraft of any type, no matter how capable can not do.
The big boys are also terribly costly to run too.
Because of this, I don't see us losing a Herc or medium airlift capability any time soon.
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
The question now, is whether or not the Govt will just keep ordering an extra C-17 everytime one is delivered (in which case they may as well just order 7-12 to make up a full squadron) or if the 6th will be the last.
A full squadron of C-17's and a full squadron of C-130J's would probably leave the RAAF quite happy for the forseable future as long as the J's have enough airframe life to last a while.
A full squadron of C-17's and a full squadron of C-130J's would probably leave the RAAF quite happy for the forseable future as long as the J's have enough airframe life to last a while.
its certainly cutting down on our leasing costs of russian phat planes as well as local commercial "interference" leases
What I was suggesting was pushing forward with AIR 8000 phase 2 Caribou replacement and buying additional C-17 to replace the herc between them. Chip away at both sides to cover the airlift requirement while reducing the number of types in service. A mix of C-27J / C-295, KC-30A and C-17 would be able to cover the full spectum of airlift requirements, the question is would it be more cost effective.
The way I see it is the C-130 can't do heavy or out size lift, nore can it be used for battlefield lift, where as the C-17 and Caribou replacement would be able to cover off the full spectrum of the Hercs missions between them.
Wouldn’t hurt.
I’m not sure if the Js will be able to last too long (there are lurking concerns that the wings will fall off thanks to all that early vibration problem) and are robust (actual definition use of this word) enough for the tactical transport missions of the C-130H. The J does however provide an excellent platform for airborne tactical support providing helicopter tanking, command and control, sensors, fires, etc. Like USAF’s MC-130J and USMC’s KC-130J. Also we have a SF air drop RHIB launching gear role for the Herc that could migrate to the J from the H.
So assuming we can get more C-17As to cover the transport mission and can migrate the C-130Js to SOF and land battle airborne support we will still need a rugged battlefield airlifter… Which is of course the C-27J. 12 of each with the Js brought up to a MC/KC standard would be a very effective force multiplier.
Yeah but the C-17 is golden in service and the MRTT is a more earth coloured shade… But once they prove the boom and start flying troops and politicos in comfort from Australia to Dubai then its stocks will be up and they can start looking at improving the force. Additional tankers are required to support the C-17 and the P-8 as the five number was just worked out to support the TACAIR force. Also a P to F conversion on at least some to provide low cost long haul transport of over sized gear. Plus a VIP fitout for one bird (could be modular after P to F and rolled out as per need across the fleet) to provide the international government transport mission. If so the next question is who’s going to give way at Amberley? ~8 MRTT or ~8 C-17? Because they all won’t fit…
Why do they have to all be at Amberly? Aircraft could be shuffled around. It could be split up across two bases.
An upfront order of 12 C-17's would proberly set off alarm bells (domestically and internationally). Thats a pretty huge purchase. I don't see us getting 12, maybe 8. As long as the line is open this won't be a problem. Split it 4 and 4 across two bases. Strategic airlift doesn't have to all be based out of QLD. Equipment and personel are located in Syd, Melb and WA. It would be useful to have aircraft about to lift into Amberly or into another base in the region from Syd/Melb/Perth..
Haven't some of the other bases been expanding.
An upfront order of 12 C-17's would proberly set off alarm bells (domestically and internationally). Thats a pretty huge purchase. I don't see us getting 12, maybe 8. As long as the line is open this won't be a problem. Split it 4 and 4 across two bases. Strategic airlift doesn't have to all be based out of QLD. Equipment and personel are located in Syd, Melb and WA. It would be useful to have aircraft about to lift into Amberly or into another base in the region from Syd/Melb/Perth..
Haven't some of the other bases been expanding.
Much easier to have them sitting on the ramp at their home base at Amberly where all the support, crews, trades, spares etc are based.. yes being aircraft they can be moved around and you will notice that I did advocate having an MRTT available at Tindal.... The problem for things like this on a more permanent basis though is that now you need another whole set of servicing gear on hand and available to cater for most problems.
Also as an example the main users for MRTT are going to be ACG.. The ACG units are at Tindal, Amberly and Willy. Amberly is close enough to willy that they will sortie down into the Willy airspace from amberly with a 45 minute transit, which is no big deal for these aircraft, so it makes a great deal of sense to have them all sitting at amberly when they arent on exercise/deployment/operations etc
Also as an example the main users for MRTT are going to be ACG.. The ACG units are at Tindal, Amberly and Willy. Amberly is close enough to willy that they will sortie down into the Willy airspace from amberly with a 45 minute transit, which is no big deal for these aircraft, so it makes a great deal of sense to have them all sitting at amberly when they arent on exercise/deployment/operations etc
Still a squadron is going to want a home and any forward deployed assets can just be a DET. Like the Wedgetail which will be homebased at WillyTown with a single (or is it two?) unit(s) at Tindal. I don’t think you would need need to DET C-17As anywhere from their home base but certainly MRTTs would.
Now if we grow the C-17As and MRTTs from five units each to six, eight or 12 the question is how to fit them all at Amberley? Which isn’t going to be really possible with numbers around eight each. As this would mean around 10 heavies on base at any typical point in time. The easy answer would be move the C-17As to Richmond. Especially if it is rebuilt as a joint RAAF civil cargo airfield.
If we start to get six or more MRTTs there could be an argument to DET two (or more) at Tindal. One for 75 SQN and the other(s) for a central, north west Australia fuel stop. MRTTs and C-17As taking off from east coast Oz en route to the MEAO and Europe can be topped up so as to fly direct to destination. I’m sure VIPs en route to London/Paris would dig not having to stop off and you could fly C-17As all the way to Afghanistan or Dubai with full cargo loads. With P-8As and potential IFR capable UAVs in service a top end MRTT can also provide fuel offload for these aircraft during north west coast surveillance missions. Especially if something dramatic is happening and you want to keep eyes on the events.
Would it be worth setting up a SOF support sqn or wing grouping modded / kitted C-130Js, Blackhawks and Chinooks, as well as perhaps a couple of other specials?
Ideally we would have all Army Aviation SOF capability in a single HQ Group (LUH sqn, MRH sqn, H-47 sqn) when we have enough CH-47s to operate two squadrons (one SOF dedicated, the other cargo lift dedicated). You could call it Special Operations Aviation Group (SOAG) which kind of sounds cool and is not to be laughed at as indicated by the immense pain and agony IRR have been going through to come up with a new name/
As to the air force if we did convert the remaining Herc Js to all SOF supt then perhaps they could be formed into a wing with 4 SQN and part of 38 SQN. That way we would have an all special operations RAAF wing.
Now if they Navy ever got a SOF support ship(s) then they could form a tactical diver team(s) from the CDTs and have a Navy SOF flotilla (or whatever they call formations).
That way SOCOMD-A would have Army, RAAF and RAN Colonel level commands providing them the air and sea support they use.
No thanks. How are you supposed to buy your duty free goodies if there are no stop-overs. Bugger being stuck in a C-17 for 20 hours straight.
Nope, that won't work. It makes too much sense and I don't think there are enough acronyms involved to appeal to the Services...
Easy, just recycle some existing well known acronyms giving them completely different meanings. This will aid in counter intelligence as an obvious lack of intelligence often confounds even the most profficient intelligence.Nope, that won't work. It makes too much sense and I don't think there are enough acronyms involved to appeal to the Services...
Yes I like it and best of all they could select and modify their own gear based on operational and strategic requirements. As they prove kit and concepts, including demonstrating its affordability and supportability, it can filter down to the rest of the ADF.