Royal Australian Air Force [RAAF] News, Discussions and Updates

[driftwood]

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?

 

[the road runner]

deleted

 

[RubiconNZ]

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?

 

[winnyfield]

USAF has cancelled the Global Hawk.

The USN however, is keeping the BAMS naval variant.

DoD cuts Block 30 Global Hawk, but spares other UAVs

 

[gf0012-aust]

USAF has cancelled the Global Hawk.

The USN however, is keeping the BAMS naval variant.

DoD cuts Block 30 Global Hawk, but spares other UAVs

good to see the mariner/predator combo stay alive. I was on plane once with one of the BPC evaluators and he clearly preferred mariner for BAMS over GH.

better flexibility through the flight surveillance envelope, and apparently more cost effective in TLS

 

[Abraham Gubler]

USAF has cancelled the Global Hawk.

They have NOT cancelled Global Hawk, just reduced the buy of the Blk 30 SIGINT version from 31 to 21. Further USAF buys of the Blk 40 IMGINT and Navy BAMS Global Hawks continue.

 

[Tee_Centre_10]

The Force Posture Review progress report has been released and I've posted some of the RAN highlights in that thread.

RAAF highlights:
* Learmonth is a key base in the NW and should be upgraded to enable protracted and sustained F-35 ops.
* Pearce, Learmonth, Tindal, Edinburgh and Townsville should be upgraded to allow unrestricted ops by KC-30 and P-8 aircraft. I'm a bit surprised that Townsville can't operate an A330 at max weights, not to mention Edinburgh, Pearce and Tindal. I could have sworn I've seen AN-124s flying out of them, but it says that only RAAF Darwin can operate KC-30s and P-8s at max weights. Maybe at Townsville the runways and taxiways are capable but the RAAF-specific taxiways and aprons cannot.
* The ADF should consider also upgrading Curtin and Scherger to operate the KC-30 and P-8.
* ADF should "rigorously assess" fuel and EO requirements for high tempo operations at northern bases.
* ADF should consider hardening and resilience improvements to northern bases in accordance with increasing capabilities in AP region.
* Consideration of basing Caribou replacement in Townsville.
* Consideration of basing airlift assets at high readiness near to TAGs in Perth and Sydney.
* Consideration of additional KC-30 tankers.
* ADFs Maritime Patrol Aircraft capability should be expanded.
* Assessment of improving fuel and munitions logistics to bases in the north, particularly in the wet season. I mentioned the option of moving stores by sea and improving port facilities in the RAN thread.
* The airport at Cocos Island should be upgraded to support P-8 operations.

Interesting bit the Press Conference with the Def Min amid all the F-35 disquiet. Mention that the USAF dropping of the C-27J has the ADF rethinking their own purchase, whether it means in a negative (not so interested) or positive ("Yay! Which way to the USAF surplus store?") way is uncertain.

 

[Tasman]

The Force Posture Review progress report has been released and I've posted some of the RAN highlights in that thread.


Interesting bit the Press Conference with the Def Min amid all the F-35 disquiet. Mention that the USAF dropping of the C-27J has the ADF rethinking their own purchase, whether it means in a negative (not so interested) or positive ("Yay! Which way to the USAF surplus store?") way is uncertain.

The Minister seemed to go out of his way to point out that Australia is only contractually obligated to buy 2 F35s - Is he suggesting that we might walk away from the next 12 in the first tranche or just that we may just delay them like the USAF. Either way it certainly seems to be opening up the way for a follow on SH order.


Tas

 

[treehuggingaj]

The Force Posture Review progress report has been released and I've posted some of the RAN highlights in that thread.

RAAF highlights:
* Learmonth is a key base in the NW and should be upgraded to enable protracted and sustained F-35 ops.
* Pearce, Learmonth, Tindal, Edinburgh and Townsville should be upgraded to allow unrestricted ops by KC-30 and P-8 aircraft. I'm a bit surprised that Townsville can't operate an A330 at max weights, not to mention Edinburgh, Pearce and Tindal. I could have sworn I've seen AN-124s flying out of them, but it says that only RAAF Darwin can operate KC-30s and P-8s at max weights. Maybe at Townsville the runways and taxiways are capable but the RAAF-specific taxiways and aprons cannot.
* The ADF should consider also upgrading Curtin and Scherger to operate the KC-30 and P-8.
* ADF should "rigorously assess" fuel and EO requirements for high tempo operations at northern bases.
* ADF should consider hardening and resilience improvements to northern bases in accordance with increasing capabilities in AP region.
* Consideration of basing Caribou replacement in Townsville.
* Consideration of basing airlift assets at high readiness near to TAGs in Perth and Sydney.
* Consideration of additional KC-30 tankers.
* ADFs Maritime Patrol Aircraft capability should be expanded.
* Assessment of improving fuel and munitions logistics to bases in the north, particularly in the wet season. I mentioned the option of moving stores by sea and improving port facilities in the RAN thread.
* The airport at Cocos Island should be upgraded to support P-8 operations.

Interesting bit the Press Conference with the Def Min amid all the F-35 disquiet. Mention that the USAF dropping of the C-27J has the ADF rethinking their own purchase, whether it means in a negative (not so interested) or positive ("Yay! Which way to the USAF surplus store?") way is uncertain.

Cheers for the post. I can't seem to download it at the moment. Regarding the Bou replacement in Townsville......I haven't heard of them going anywhere else??

 

[Tee_Centre_10]

If he doesn't do that headlines the next day will scream "Air Force $3b Lemon!!1!" because of course 14 x $200m = $3b.
Or worse: "Air Force's $20b Lemon!!1!? When will the insanity end? Think of the children!"

It is difficult for the media to make a mountain out of 2 aircraft.

 

[ngatimozart]

It is difficult for the media to make a mountain out of 2 aircraft.

Don't worry they'll find a way. Never let the truth stand in the way of a good story. It's a wonder they haven't picked up on the USAF getting rid of the Spartans.

 

[south]

Peacetime support, limited operations support, or high sortie operational support?
So just the F-18A/F or F-35 squadrons, but not the refueling requirements of the Wedgetails, Poseidons, C-17s or the MRTTs themselves?
What about allied aircraft? Would they be involved in any operations RAAF strike aircraft might be deployed to, or will they come with their own tankers?
Will all of these MRTT be operating from the one area, or might the fleet need to deploy to two or more widely separated operational areas or even different theatres altogether?
Does it cover peacetime fleet upgrades, or increased maintenance schedules due to higher than expected sortie rates?
What about fleet attrition suffered due to accidents, crashes or combat damage during the life of the fleet, or even the attrition suffered due to mechanical issues before and during missions?
What about the the second T in MRTT? Is that no longer required when the four strike squadrons need their tankers?

Hmm. I would have thought that 10 or more would have been more like a operationally useful number. 5 seems more like maintaining a bare minimum capability.

5 is pretty skinny.

Assuming that one is in deep maintenance now you only have 4 for 4 fighter sqns (As AG is advocating). You could cut it pretty easy with 4 if they were all operating from the same location. On the other hand if you were operating from two dispersed locations and one tanker went down you could kiss large strike packages or 24hour ops goodbye.

Edit to add: thats not even considering if Wedgetail or P8 want support.

Shouldnt this be in the RAAF thread?

Mod edit: Moved post into RAAF thread.
-Preceptor

 

[Todjaeger]

5 is pretty skinny.

Assuming that one is in deep maintenance now you only have 4 for 4 fighter sqns (As AG is advocating). You could cut it pretty easy with 4 if they were all operating from the same location. On the other hand if you were operating from two dispersed locations and one tanker went down you could kiss large strike packages or 24hour ops goodbye.

Edit to add: thats not even considering if Wedgetail or P8 want support.

Regarding only having 5... Things can also get interesting if significant numbers of people need to be flown into/out of an area at the same time IFR is required elsewhere.

With regards to IFR for the Wedgetail and P-8, I was under the impression that neither aircraft was to be plumbed for IFR because of mission endurance limitations of 15 - 18 hours due to on-board fluid replenishment..

-Cheers

 

[ADMk2]

Peacetime support, limited operations support, or high sortie operational support?
So just the F-18A/F or F-35 squadrons, but not the refueling requirements of the Wedgetails, Poseidons, C-17s or the MRTTs themselves?
What about allied aircraft? Would they be involved in any operations RAAF strike aircraft might be deployed to, or will they come with their own tankers?
Will all of these MRTT be operating from the one area, or might the fleet need to deploy to two or more widely separated operational areas or even different theatres altogether?
Does it cover peacetime fleet upgrades, or increased maintenance schedules due to higher than expected sortie rates?
What about fleet attrition suffered due to accidents, crashes or combat damage during the life of the fleet, or even the attrition suffered due to mechanical issues before and during missions?
What about the the second T in MRTT? Is that no longer required when the four strike squadrons need their tankers?

Hmm. I would have thought that 10 or more would have been more like a operationally useful number. 5 seems more like maintaining a bare minimum capability.

The RAAF MRTT capability as currently funded is intended to support peacetime aerial refuelling requirements as well as limited operational refuelling requirements.

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).

 

[ADMk2]

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?

 

[Paddy54]

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.

A pipe dream = will never happen
.

.

 

[ADMk2]

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?

 

[ngatimozart]

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.

 

[ADMk2]

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...

 

[Tasman]

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.

Tas