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

[Abraham Gubler]

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).

One tanker per TACAIR squadron is the pretty usual ratio in combat operations.

USAF has a far higher number of tankers per TACAIR squadrons because they also provide IFR in bulk to strategic bombers and strategic transport. We’ve never had the former (no matter what anyone says about the F-111) but we now have the later. The C-17s can fly from Australia to the other side of the world carrying a C-130 load. But to do so with a C-17 load requires IFR or a stop.

The Wedgetail and P-8 both have boom receptacles and can take advantage of IFR. They won’t be staying aloft for 48 hour missions but you can get a good boost especially in the far north when they will be struggling to get aloft when fully loaded with gear and bombs and the like. The other big potential user of IFR for the RAAF in the lifetime of the KC-30 is UAVs…

 

[south]

One tanker per TACAIR squadron is the pretty usual ratio in combat operations.

USAF has a far higher number of tankers per TACAIR squadrons because they also provide IFR in bulk to strategic bombers and strategic transport. We’ve never had the former (no matter what anyone says about the F-111) but we now have the later. The C-17s can fly from Australia to the other side of the world carrying a C-130 load. But to do so with a C-17 load requires IFR or a stop.

The Wedgetail and P-8 both have boom receptacles and can take advantage of IFR. They won’t be staying aloft for 48 hour missions but you can get a good boost especially in the far north when they will be struggling to get aloft when fully loaded with gear and bombs and the like. The other big potential user of IFR for the RAAF in the lifetime of the KC-30 is UAVs…

Thats because the USAF might have sayyyyy 8-10 SQN's operating out of a base. So if you have that you have a bunch of tankers supporting them, if one drops out you maybe lose 12-15% of the force and have adequate redundancy. What you are talking about with the RAAF if one drops out you lose 25%, and if they are operating from dispartate locations you lose 50%, which is a big deal (i.e you could end up scrubbing the mission*)

*Caveat - too many factors to go into - range of aircraft, endurance required, mission required, operating theatre, etc

Personally I reckon 2 more tankers would be nice...

Can we get by begging off the USAF... you bet.

Will 5 tankers keep the ADF Self Sufficient in the way you are talking. Its a gamble....

 

[t68]

Thats because the USAF might have sayyyyy 8-10 SQN's operating out of a base. So if you have that you have a bunch of tankers supporting them, if one drops out you maybe lose 12-15% of the force and have adequate redundancy. What you are talking about with the RAAF if one drops out you lose 25%, and if they are operating from dispartate locations you lose 50%, which is a big deal (i.e you could end up scrubbing the mission*)

*Caveat - too many factors to go into - range of aircraft, endurance required, mission required, operating theatre, etc

Personally I reckon 2 more tankers would be nice...

Can we get by begging off the USAF... you bet.

Will 5 tankers keep the ADF Self Sufficient in the way you are talking. Its a gamble....

A report on the modernisation of the USAF tanker fleet. Some aspect of it can be put into perspective with the RAAF own tanker fleet.

http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/l...efense/modernizing-aerial-refueling-fleet.pdf

I found it to be very informative, I would hate to be part of the planning staff working out a very complex but highly desirable part of air operations.

 

[donuteater]

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?

Well I think some alternatives are Merlins, Sea Knights, MH-53's and this one won't happen but maybe a modernised Sea King.

 

[ngatimozart]

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?

Australia is not in a situation of its own making like it was with the SH2G Seasprites. The problems with the NH90 are manufactuer problems creating delays. there are some prooblems cited by the ADF with the floors apparently not strong enough for the average soldiers boots. The Germans are reporting the same problem. There was also apparently a problem with the engines and there have been long delivery delays. In NZs case the manufacture is having to pay for delivery by AN124 from France 2 helos at a time. Contrary to what donut thinks, this is a brand new model with it's usual share (probably a bit more) of teething problems. Having said that it is design and manufacture by committee but it is early days at the moment. There are other helos with similar capabilities but older technology.

 

[ADMk2]

Well I think some alternatives are Merlins, Sea Knights, MH-53's and this one won't happen but maybe a modernised Sea King.

Er, try the aircraft that was short-listed along with MRH-90, namely the UH-60M and you might get close...

And if the MRH-90 were to fall over completely and RAN needed a new helicopter to cover the former Sea King role, then it could take it's pick of MH-60S Sierra's or the new MH-60R "lite" minus most of the gear that takes up all the room in the cabin.

It would mean more cash has been wasted on helos but this time at least, the blame lies squarely with the Government of the day, rather than the Services that recommended the US product in the first place...

 

[ADMk2]

Australia is not in a situation of its own making like it was with the SH2G Seasprites.

We kind of are. The problems with the NH-90 were known at the time it was selected. It was assumed, they would be over-come in development.

Despite this, Army Aviation still wanted UH-60M Blackhawk, but Government wanted the assembly line at Australian Aerospace to continue.

So we got MRH-90...

 

[ngatimozart]

We kind of are. The problems with the NH-90 were known at the time it was selected. It was assumed, they would be over-come in development.

Despite this, Army Aviation still wanted UH-60M Blackhawk, but Government wanted the assembly line at Australian Aerospace to continue.

So we got MRH-90...

I wasn't quite sure but donut who doesn't take hints and knows nothing had wound me up, had originally answered the question and I didn't want to confuse the issue for driftwood. The difference betwen the NH90 purchase & the Seasprite I was getting at was the RAN wanting indigenous specific sensors etc that for some reason would not integrate with the helo. Might have been a blessing in disguise because we are now at a MLU and decision has to be made about MLU or replacement because the service from Kaman not the best and parts hard to get. RNZN have orphan fleet. Hopefully the NZG will bite the bullet and buy us some Romeos.

 

[Milne Bay]

I wasn't quite sure but donut who doesn't take hints and knows nothing had wound me up, had originally answered the question and I didn't want to confuse the issue for driftwood. The difference betwen the NH90 purchase & the Seasprite I was getting at was the RAN wanting indigenous specific sensors etc that for some reason would not integrate with the helo. Might have been a blessing in disguise because we are now at a MLU and decision has to be made about MLU or replacement because the service from Kaman not the best and parts hard to get. RNZN have orphan fleet. Hopefully the NZG will bite the bullet and buy us some Romeos.

Would it be fair to say that the RNZN only bought the Seasprites because Australia had. Seems we might have dudded both you and us.

 

[Volkodav]

Would it be fair to say that the RNZN only bought the Seasprites because Australia had. Seems we might have dudded both you and us.

I could be mistaken but I believe NZ originally selected the Super Lynx but defered the contract pending Australias choice between the Super Lynx and Super Seasprite. Hindsight Lynx would have been the way to go.

I must ask why we are discussing ship based helicopters on the RAAF thread though?

 

[Volkodav]

Back on a RAAF topic, I believe we may now have the perfect replacement for the PC-9 in the FAC and proposed CAS role; the US has announced the early retirement of 103 A-10s. A dozen or so upgraded to the latest USAF standard would be a very interesting new capabiliy for the RAAF, they could conceivably even take some of the load off the HUG Bugs and Hawks permitting their service lives to be extended a little as required prior to replacement.

 

[t68]

Back on a RAAF topic, I believe we may now have the perfect replacement for the PC-9 in the FAC and proposed CAS role; the US has announced the early retirement of 103 A-10s. A dozen or so upgraded to the latest USAF standard would be a very interesting new capabiliy for the RAAF, they could conceivably even take some of the load off the HUG Bugs and Hawks permitting their service lives to be extended a little as required prior to replacement.

I always thought a Squadrons worth of A-10 Thunderbolts or the OV-10 Bronco would be a handy investment for the RAAF, but we only have four PC-9/A modified for the FAC role and have the Tiger ARH in the Light Attack/Armed Reconnaissance role. Did any PC-9/A serve in ET on standby for the fast movers?

If AusGov came on board now we would only see the aircraft in operational service 6/8n years from now, with the A-10 expected to retire in 2028 that’s ten years of service if RAAF follow the USAF but then that does not mean anything looking at service time for the F111 compared to the US.

Any idea what is happening with the Light Attack/Armed Reconnaissance (LAAR) program in the US, Boeing were said to be building a new version of the Bronco, If we can get the A10 rather cheap it would make sense if we can get the A-10C with the glass cockpit and data link for “JDAM” as used with the Hornet fleet.

Edit,
I just read a as part of the upgrade program for the A-10. Boeing built 242 new wing sets service life of the re-winged aircraft is extended to 2040.

 

[Jezza]

Back on a RAAF topic, I believe we may now have the perfect replacement for the PC-9 in the FAC and proposed CAS role; the US has announced the early retirement of 103 A-10s. A dozen or so upgraded to the latest USAF standard would be a very interesting new capabiliy for the RAAF, they could conceivably even take some of the load off the HUG Bugs and Hawks permitting their service lives to be extended a little as required prior to replacement.

Agreed, If the US are dumping C27js. RAAF could get 16 for the price of 12.
10 to 15 A-10cs and 16 to 20 C27s would be a nice grab.

 

[ngatimozart]

I could be mistaken but I believe NZ originally selected the Super Lynx but defered the contract pending Australias choice between the Super Lynx and Super Seasprite. Hindsight Lynx would have been the way to go.

I must ask why we are discussing ship based helicopters on the RAAF thread though?

Beacause a newbie ask a question about the MRH 90s here and donut eater answered with incorrect gen and I used the Seasprites as an example of the ADF getting it wrong.

 

[ADMk2]

Back on a RAAF topic, I believe we may now have the perfect replacement for the PC-9 in the FAC and proposed CAS role; the US has announced the early retirement of 103 A-10s. A dozen or so upgraded to the latest USAF standard would be a very interesting new capabiliy for the RAAF, they could conceivably even take some of the load off the HUG Bugs and Hawks permitting their service lives to be extended a little as required prior to replacement.

I suspect we'll probably see the T-6C Texan II in the PC-9A replacement role and therefore "maybe" the AT-6C in the FAC and light CAS role, but I believe there will only ever be a handful as there is now with 4 Sqn's PC-9A's.

 

[donuteater]

I always thought a Squadrons worth of A-10 Thunderbolts or the OV-10 Bronco would be a handy investment for the RAAF, but we only have four PC-9/A modified for the FAC role and have the Tiger ARH in the Light Attack/Armed Reconnaissance role. Did any PC-9/A serve in ET on standby for the fast movers?

If AusGov came on board now we would only see the aircraft in operational service 6/8n years from now, with the A-10 expected to retire in 2028 that’s ten years of service if RAAF follow the USAF but then that does not mean anything looking at service time for the F111 compared to the.
I just read a as part of the upgrade program for the A-10. Boeing built 242 new wing sets service life of the re-winged aircraft is extended to 2040.

Africa has designed a very small plane called the AHRLAC. It is capable of STOL and if I am correct, it is cheap. It doesn't have the tremendous armament of the A-10 but it can perform more roles such as ground attack, scout, tank busting, armed patrol and surveillance. It is lightly armed with a 20mm cannon and I think 6 hardpoint's. I reckon it would be a better buy than old A-10's. Maybe instead of tigers, our LHD's could have AHRLAC's. It also has an endurance of 7.5 hours and a top speed of 272kt.

 

[Milne Bay]

it can perform more roles such as ground attack, scout, tank busting, armed patrol and surveillance.

I think you will find that our ARH - Tigers can perform most of these roles.
IMHO chances of A-10's in RAAF service would be two - buckley's and none.

 

[Tee_Centre_10]

I suspect we'll probably see the T-6C Texan II in the PC-9A replacement role and therefore "maybe" the AT-6C in the FAC and light CAS role, but I believe there will only ever be a handful as there is now with 4 Sqn's PC-9A's.

It's unlikely that the FAC aircraft will be any different to the AIR 5428 aircraft, as 4 Sqn is more of a developmental unit rather than operational unit. Both the favourites in the PC-21 and T-6 have weapons hardpoints, so they both can undertake the role.
I like the the AT-6 and probably it is a good capability for the RAAF to field (beefed up structure, and enhanced targeting and weapons capability), but it is different enough to the T-6 that it would deter any hypothetical RAAF purchase.

AIR 5428 is very interesting as it may end up less about the aircraft itself and more about the training systems being offered by the bidders.

The AHRLAC looks fine, but it adds another type into service. If the RAAF wants/needs such an aircraft then it would be better off going the AT-6/T-6 route. Plus many of its roles would be better taken care of by an armed MQ-9 Reaper UAV.

 

[Marc 1]

Africa has designed a very small plane called the AHRLAC..

Ah, just what we need - an experimental unproven design from a manufacturer with little experience. Service entry - 2040?

 

[Cadredave]

Africa has designed a very small plane called the AHRLAC. It is capable of STOL and if I am correct, it is cheap. It doesn't have the tremendous armament of the A-10 but it can perform more roles such as ground attack, scout, tank busting, armed patrol and surveillance. It is lightly armed with a 20mm cannon and I think 6 hardpoint's. I reckon it would be a better buy than old A-10's. Maybe instead of tigers, our LHD's could have AHRLAC's. It also has an endurance of 7.5 hours and a top speed of 272kt.

First paragraph from the Wall Street Journal:

Two South African companies are attempting to elbow their way into the global defense market with an unusual new aircraft developed on home soil.

Paramount Group and Aerosud Holdings Ltd on Tuesday will unveil the Ahrlac, a compact plane that they say merges the capabilities of a drone, an attack helicopter and surveillance aircraft.

Just what ADF need another experimental system its amazing what a quick google search will find need I say more.

CD