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

[gf0012-aust]

Do you really think the C-17s are there just for the RAAF? They are a national asset that just happens to wear RAAF roundels...

they're considered to be joint assets. in fact there are a few wags that consider them to be the part time property of DFAT and DIm(m)i

RAAF have generally been better at getting assets as they have read the tea leaves prior to Gate Reviews and argued dual use. The same can be said of Bill and Ben Mk2, and Choules.

Unfort army don't have that get out of gaol card to use in front of Central Agencies etc..... (although Bill and Ben Mk2 did get a good run and plug by Army stemming from the ET lessons)

 

[ADMk2]

they're considered to be joint assets. in fact there are a few wags that consider them to be the part time property of DFAT and DIm(m)i

RAAF have generally been better at getting assets as they have read the tea leaves prior to Gate Reviews and argued dual use. The same can be said of Bill and Ben Mk2, and Choules.

Unfort army don't have that get out of gaol card to use in front of Central Agencies etc..... (although Bill and Ben Mk2 did get a good run and plug by Army stemming from the ET lessons)

Re: Army, apart from transport helos and littoral watercraft perhaps, I guess? Not to mention, deployable medical and logistical capability...

 

[Volkodav]

I think its a laugh that the C-17 has proven so successful yet the proposed acquisition of C-141 and later C-5 faced considerable, ultimately successful, resistance. Things really have changed for the better, we just need to hope that the pendulum doesn't swing so far towards "jointness" that all we are left with is non-combatant purple enablers and no actual shooters.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Re: Army, apart from transport helos and littoral watercraft perhaps, I guess? Not to mention, deployable medical and logistical capability...

true, but the hi-tech medical modules for c-17's got the coin - hence some of the suspended disbelief at some of the statements made about oz mil support for the ebola issue

 

[John Fedup]

I think its a laugh that the C-17 has proven so successful yet the proposed acquisition of C-141 and later C-5 faced considerable, ultimately successful, resistance. Things really have changed for the better, we just need to hope that the pendulum doesn't swing so far towards "jointness" that all we are left with is non-combatant purple enablers and no actual shooters.

Fighting a war in a land locked country with unfriendly roads certainly showed NATO allies and Australia why the U.S. and Russia invested some big dollars in An-124s and C-5s and later the U.S. with the C-17 program. Canada should be buying at least 2 whitetail C-17s before they are bought by an country.

 

[old faithful]

I think its a laugh that the C-17 has proven so successful yet the proposed acquisition of C-141 and later C-5 faced considerable, ultimately successful, resistance. Things really have changed for the better, we just need to hope that the pendulum doesn't swing so far towards "jointness" that all we are left with is non-combatant purple enablers and no actual shooters.

I can see whynwe didnt get the C141, theynare justna streatched herc with jets, cost a motza to run, and dont really give much advantage over the C130, s.
C5, s would have been handy.
With the fat ships, choules and the 130J30, s and C17, s , we have got reach like never before, now wenjust need a brigade to move at short notice, and Imdont believe that a beersheeba style unit isnthe answer really.
We need both an airmobile brigade and the beersheeba units..
Ideally, we need to raise just 1 more Bn.
3 beersheeba brigades, and bn 7 and 8 as an ODF style group.
2 bn groups on short notice. 2RAR to keep the Amphib role untill the rest of Army is worked up.
12 x C130, s and 10 C17, s can easily move a bn group, with all supporting units. Infact 6 C17, s would do it with maybe 2 of the hercs.

 

[swerve]

Yes, C-141 cargo box width & height is almost identical to C-130.

 

[Volkodav]

Yes, C-141 cargo box width & height is almost identical to C-130.

Yes, it is, the primary advantage of the Starlifter was its greater speed and comfort with the account I read stating Australia's primary interest in the type was it would have been vastly superior to the Herc in casualty evacuation. There was apparently only a limited window of opportunity to order the type before production wound up, after which the much larger C-5 would be the only option. The C-5, while much larger and more versatile, was also much more expensive to buy, own and operate ( probably the real reason we didn't buy them) with some commentators coming out with stuff like,if one crashes we could loose an entire battalion etc.

The C-17 is a vastly more versatile platform and probably much better value for money than the older types and I am glad we have them.

 

[Magoo]

The clincher for the C-17 was the Indian Ocean Tsunami. Until then it had always been on a wishlist somewhere but was never seriously put forward by Defence due to cost.

The Herc crews couldn't do Darwin-Medan-Darwin in one trip, and were quite payload limited out of Medan unless they did a tech stop at Butterworth which only made the day longer. Crew accommodation at Medan was non-existent, so crews had to be staged at Butterworth.

A C-17 could have done it with ease, day after day, with 3-4 times the payload and with no pavement rating restrictions at Medan.

Your allegiance to the RAAF is commendable...

And this is why I fear the ADF will never be the truly integrated force that CAF, CJOPS and others are pushing for. I have NO allegiance to any particular service - it just so happens that the majority of the ADF aircraft (a subject I specialise in) are operated by the RAAF.

I would suggest that Growler is probably the ultimate joint asset, as it will be supporting air, land, maritime and cyber forces in near equal parts.

Guys on the ships or on the ground or at a desk in Canberra, regardless of uniform colour, should be asking "What do we have available?", not "What does air force have available?"

 

[gf0012-aust]

Guys on the ships or on the ground or at a desk in Canberra, regardless of uniform colour, should be asking "What do we have available?", not "What does air force have available?"

well, thats always the question that drives our engagement with HQJOC - and its certainly what J3, J5 J7/8 ask.....

I can think of a number of specific recent events where the general question was asked and was not platform specific

 

[t68]

Magoo, do you think once C27J arrives will they increase the fleet from 10, and why 10 and not 12 per squadron?

 

[Magoo]

Magoo, do you think once C27J arrives will they increase the fleet from 10, and why 10 and not 12 per squadron?

No idea, but I suspect any thought of increasing the fleet would be taken in the context of the Defence White Paper/Force Posture Review, the budget, and our experience in getting the C-27J to IOC.

There is some interest in the AC-27J, although whether that'll be additional airframes or just the palletised kits, I don't know.

 

[t68]

No idea, but I suspect any thought of increasing the fleet would be taken in the context of the Defence White Paper/Force Posture Review, the budget, and our experience in getting the C-27J to IOC.

There is some interest in the AC-27J, although whether that'll be additional airframes or just the palletised kits, I don't know.

Cheers thanks for that, didn't know the stinger was getting interst from the headsheds. Would make a nice overwatch aircraft not only for the green army but black aswell

 

[Nick underscore]

There is some interest in the AC-27J, although whether that'll be additional airframes or just the palletised kits, I don't know.

Thanks Magoo.

Could I ask is if you mean MC-27J Pretorian and not the Stinger. Wasn't that program canned a while ago by USAAF, when they dumped the C-27? The MC-27J seems (on paper) to be quite handy in various roles.

10 platforms was a strange number. Do you know whether the contract had embedded options from the outset? Appreciate you have already mentioned increase on current numbers, is under future determining factors.

Would RAAF/RAA use the C-27 as an airborne jump platform or is that C-130J and when/if C-17ER? I understand it could, but is that a role we have envisaged for this platform, considering the Bou's left quite some time ago.

Cheers

EDIT: Couldn't find anything related to the options on the original govt announcement, but quite interestingly - much of the equipment (besides engines being x23) all EWSP Suites, Radar/ Missile Warning Receivers, Countermeasures, IFF's, Radars, Comms & Flight Mission Planning Systems all were ordered as 12 sets and not 10 + 1 maybe as spare..

 

[Magoo]

Yep, MC-27J sorry.

No idea re jump platform etc - I suspect the main priority right now is getting the battlefield airlifter role bedded down, and then looking at expanding the capability from there.

The C-130J has received a big capability boost and is finally able to do heavy drops and more spec ops support work, so I'd say that niche is taken care of for now.

No real advantage is using a C-17 for jump work - despite its size, it can't actually carry very many more paras than a Herc. Leave the C-17 to strategic or large payload ops I say.

 

[old faithful]

The old C130H could jump 64 troopers on a DZ, I think the 130J30 can pack about 92 .
The C17 about 100. 100 troops in 1 pass needs a very very big DZ.
Heavy drops arnt that easy to do. Its easy to wreck a load, I have even seen a Uni mog, lost for quite some time in a sugar cane field. 3RAR actually destroyed a corn crop near Nowra somemyears ago, we left about 250 paths through the corn.

LAPES is a pretty dangerous exercise, has been done by the RAAF very well, considering they dont actually practice a lot.

Mass drops of troops and heavy equipment is not something likley to be used by the ADF anytime soon.

The C27J, s would be useful for areial re sup and para insertion of Platoon sized units, and the crews would not take long to train up for that role, easy transition actually.

 

[Raven22]

Would RAAF/RAA use the C-27 as an airborne jump platform or is that C-130J and when/if C-17ER? I understand it could, but is that a role we have envisaged for this platform, considering the Bou's left quite some time ago.

The C-27s absolutely will be used to drop soldiers and stores. In Afghanistan, US C-27s were used as an insertion platform for Aussie soldiers quite extensively. AMTDU is already starting to gear up for the necessary trials and certification.

While you might not be able to carry many more paratroopers in a C17 than a Herc, you can carry them in far, far more comfort. As a result, the soldiers are actually likely to hit the DZ in something other than a state of complete exhaustion. US Paras from Alaska conducting drops into Shoalwater Bay after a non-stop flight is testament to this.

 

[Nick underscore]

Yep, MC-27J sorry.

No idea re jump platform etc - I suspect the main priority right now is getting the battlefield airlifter role bedded down, and then looking at expanding the capability from there.

The C-130J has received a big capability boost and is finally able to do heavy drops and more spec ops support work, so I'd say that niche is taken care of for now.

No real advantage is using a C-17 for jump work - despite its size, it can't actually carry very many more paras than a Herc. Leave the C-17 to strategic or large payload ops I say.

Thanks for info Magoo

The old C130H could jump 64 troopers on a DZ, I think the 130J30 can pack about 80 odd.
The C17 about 100. 100 troops in 1 pass needs a very very big DZ.
Heavy drops arnt that easy to do. Its easy to wreck a load, I have even seen a Uni mog, lost for quite some time in a sugar cane field. 3RAR actually destroyed a corn crop near Nowra somemyears ago, we left about 250 paths through the corn.

LAPES is a pretty dangerous exercise, has been done by the RAAF very well, considering they dont actually practice a lot.

Mass drops of troops and heavy equipment is not something likley to be used by the ADF anytime soon.

The C27J, s would be useful for areial re sup and para insertion of Platoon sized units, and the crews would not take long to train up for that role, easy transition actually.

Cheers OF. LAPES usage in the SW pacific on HADR missions would be perfect for the C-27J. Assuming it is certified to do this already.

So just from a capabilty perspective and completely at the other end of the realism spectrum, the RAA could insert a full airborne Btln of troops + equipment, with the available transport C-130J, C-17ER & C-27J)?

Cheers

 

[Nick underscore]

The C-27s absolutely will be used to drop soldiers and stores. In Afghanistan, US C-27s were used as an insertion platform for Aussie soldiers quite extensively.
While you might not be able to carry many more paratroopers in a C17 than a Herc, you can carry them in far, far more comfort. As a result, the soldiers are actually likely to hit the DZ in something other than a state of complete exhaustion. US Paras from Alaska conducting drops into Shoalwater Bay after a non-stop flight is testament to this.

Interesting and thanks for that info Raven.

Is that last line completely true? That's impressive if so. That's 15-16hrs? May I ask how big the formation?

 

[Raven22]

Interesting and thanks for that info Raven.

Is that last line completely true? That's impressive if so. That's 15-16hrs? May I ask how big the formation?

Yeah, its true. It was a 17 hour flight from memory. It's happened more than once, but usually its about a battalion or so that does the jump. Just google it for more info.