The RAAF already operates the PC-9A
PC-21 seems like a logical progression.
Operating costs and systems familiarity may have something to do with it
We are still awaiting an official announcement though
MB
Royal Australian Air Force [RAAF] News, Discussions and Updates
PC-21 seems like a logical progression.
Operating costs and systems familiarity may have something to do with it
We are still awaiting an official announcement though
MB
And theT6 is derived from the pc9, so that too could been as a logical progression, particularly when all our closest allies use it....suspect the decision (if in fact the report is correct) has more to do with other parts of the package, and not the aircraft itself.
Quite likely
MB
Nick underscore
Member
No longer!
Dry test (no actual liquid transfer), but 14 contacts with another RAAF KC-30A. Flow rates on the ARBS stated as 4500l/min (C-17) w/ 100t capacity.
Also now provides the E-7A's with longer legs. - RAAF KC-30A conducts first ARBS contact
Singapore operates PC21 out of Pearce WA so I imagine the RAAF would have got a pretty good look at the type. It is also a next generation platform that better simulates jet flight characteristics, a great advantage for a training platform.
Maybe they won it on price or better value for money.
John Newman
The Bunker Group
As reported in the NZ Air Force thread Qatar has just ordered four of the remaining C-17 white tails:
Boeing, Qatar Confirm Purchase of Four C-17s
Nine of the white tails now appear to be accounted for:
4 - Qatar - (Just announced)
2 - UAE - (Reported in February this year)
2 - Australia - (Due for delivery this year)
1 - Canada - (Already delivered)
Pretty obvious now that the RAAF won't be seeing the C-17A fleet grow from eight to ten, yes there is still the possibility (when the new DWP is announced) that the last white tail could still end up in RAAF service, making a fleet of nine, but maybe the Government has decided not to grow the fleet beyond the current eight and the ninth won't happen anyway.
Still, in less than 10 years we have seen the RAAF C-17A fleet grow from zero to four, then a fifth, a sixth and now eight with the last two to be delivered by the end of the year, a pretty impressive capability regardless of if it grows any further.
Hopefully when the DWP is announced we can now see some extra effort and focus put on growing the KC-30A fleet beyond the current five to at least eight (as was the original plan with the three options that were never exercised).
Boeing, Qatar Confirm Purchase of Four C-17s
Nine of the white tails now appear to be accounted for:
4 - Qatar - (Just announced)
2 - UAE - (Reported in February this year)
2 - Australia - (Due for delivery this year)
1 - Canada - (Already delivered)
Pretty obvious now that the RAAF won't be seeing the C-17A fleet grow from eight to ten, yes there is still the possibility (when the new DWP is announced) that the last white tail could still end up in RAAF service, making a fleet of nine, but maybe the Government has decided not to grow the fleet beyond the current eight and the ninth won't happen anyway.
Still, in less than 10 years we have seen the RAAF C-17A fleet grow from zero to four, then a fifth, a sixth and now eight with the last two to be delivered by the end of the year, a pretty impressive capability regardless of if it grows any further.
Hopefully when the DWP is announced we can now see some extra effort and focus put on growing the KC-30A fleet beyond the current five to at least eight (as was the original plan with the three options that were never exercised).
t68
Well-Known Member
If those number are correct I saw just bite the bullet and get the remaining C17,agree on KC-30A but talk some time ago of an extra KC-30A, I think there are important asset for RAAF and more importantly to out allies across the globe there's always room for extra AAR and lift especially as ours have both boom and drouge.
John Newman
The Bunker Group
If I remember correctly at the time the previous Def Min announced the possibility of more C-17's and KC-30A's he said something like 'an extra two KC-30A's, one configured for VIP and one or two extra C-17'. Since then nothing further has been said or mentioned about the additional KC-30A's, but we had the 'one or two' C-17 turn into two definite and possibly two more on top, it may just turn out that airframes 7 & 8 are it and no more, were they beaten to the punch or was there just not enough dollars to actually go the extra step? Probably never know.
Assuming the dollars were there to obtain 9 & 10, and if we don't obtain the last remaining C-17 white tail, eg, no 9, then maybe those dollars (or part of) could be put towards more than two KC-30A's, at least get the fleet to the original proposal of eight, (5 + 3 options), it would be even better if the VIP aircraft were on top of the main fleet of eight too (yes a dream that is very unlikely to be fulfilled!).
Yes the KC-30A's are a quantum leap in capability over the B707 tankers, but still with only five operational airframes, they are going to be awfully stretched to the limit if the RAAF is ever involved in a high intensity operation that requires significant tanking capabilities available for a long and sustained period of time.
By the mid 2020's the number of aircraft in the RAAF inventory that are capable of refuelling from a boom equipped tanker will be around 100 and if the Super Hornets are replaced around 2030 with the additional F-35A's that will take that fleet of various aircraft to around 130 airframes (conversely only the 12 Growlers will require a hose and drogue equipped tanker).
Anyway, just have to wait and see what the new DWP delivers!!
meatshield
Active Member
Read this today thought the group might find it interesting
Air Force Completes Boom Refuelling Trials Between KC-30A Multi-Role Tanker Transport and E-7A Wedgetail
Air Force Completes Boom Refuelling Trials Between KC-30A Multi-Role Tanker Transport and E-7A Wedgetail
Great to get some positive news on the boom,they need to get trials with other aircraft on the go to make the KC30 an even bigger asset.I think things are going to get underway with Singapore F15s in time.
Tiddles
Army aviation I know, but seemed better to put it here.....
Flight Daily news from Paris airshow notes that Boeing is looking for customers for about 35 ch47f to fill the production options remaining on its second multi year procurement contract with the us army...60 options were included but only 25 taken up.
A chance for cheap (er) chinooks for 5 avn regt?
Flight Daily news from Paris airshow notes that Boeing is looking for customers for about 35 ch47f to fill the production options remaining on its second multi year procurement contract with the us army...60 options were included but only 25 taken up.
A chance for cheap (er) chinooks for 5 avn regt?
t68
Well-Known Member
We'll would be a good option, we have started to receive the 7 F's that we ordered those seven should have FOC in 2017. I guess it comes down to if the rebuild the D's or not.
Me personally would like to see another 7 ordered and rebuild the D's into MH-47F for spec ops work
t68
Well-Known Member
Boeing is rebuilding a number of D's into F's as we'll as rebuilding into MH-47G for long range spec ops work
The U.S. Army Is Pondering a "Growth Variant" of the CH-47 Chinook | Defense Media Network
So apparently some use in Spec Op's though doesn't give an idea on how many hour's each air frame has on it. Only so much useful life one will get out of an air frame until it start's costing more to maintain it then to get an entirely new one.
I'd imagine the one's they rebuilding have low hour's, But I'm guessing no one has a rough idea on how many hours our's have?
They would be averaging a fair numbers of hours. They were used extensively in Afgahanistan.
Australia?s Chinook mission in Afghanistan complete - Department of Defence
Add training etc, loss of several airframes would mean that several had to work harder to cover the loss.
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Firstly I can't see that the Army is going to operate both the new F's and the existing D's side by side, two relatively small fleets of different spec will become a maintenance, logistics and training nightmare, just can't see it happening, but it doesn't mean that the D's can't be 'back traded' to Boeing to either be 'remanufactured' to F standard and returned, or even just back traded and replaced by new or remanufactured F's that are coming off the Boeing production line (our back traded D's would then go into the pool of airframes available for remanufacture by Boeing).
As far as your question about how many hours are on airframes, that really doesn't matter one little bit. Apart from 'new build' F's, the remanufactured F's are basically 'zero timed' when delivered back and the difference in price between the two is only a 'few' million, not 'tens' of millions.
You have to understand that a lot of the D's that are in service around the world today are in fact remanufactured from previous A, B and C models, in fact the D's in Army service today, four were originally C's that were delivered to the RAAF back in 1974 were manufactured in 1973 (what I don't know is if the 12 C's the RAAF received in 1974 if they were 'new' build or 're builds' of previous A or B models), and the additional four D's that were received by the Army from the US were all remanufactured from C's as well, one airframe dates back to 1968!
I've even read an article where a 'current' US National Guard D actually started life as an A back in 1961, the article also talks about the remanufacturing process too (see link below):
National Guard December 2014 Page 28
(Edit update: Try this link, it's easier to read):
http://nationalguardmagazine.com/ar...+‘F’+is+Excellent/1884756/238251/article.html
In the past the journey from A to D saw the same airframe carried through and other components either renewed or replaced (a lot of the 'donor' airframe lived on!), today with the remanufactured F model, the 'whole' of the airframe is replaced with a completely new airframe that has seen a lot of the smaller airframe parts, that were riveted together, replaced with much larger 'single' pieces and it's basically only the very 'large' components such as the transmission that is remanufactured and zero timed, the end result is that a remanufactured D to F results in an almost identical 'new build' F.
In regard to the MH-47G's, I understand that they are all being produced by remanufacturing previous MH-47D's and E's (I haven't read anywhere if Boing is actually making new MH-47G's from scratch, I believe the G's are all remanufactured?).
Anyway, if the Army is going to increase the CH-47F fleet (and possibly look at obtaining MH-47G's for the Special Forces too), it doesn't really matter one bit if they are 'new' or 'remanufactured', the end production is the same.
"Old Chinooks never die! They get reborn over and over, again and again!"
Last edited:
John Newman
The Bunker Group
No problem mate.
I think the big point to be made (as opposed to a fixed wing aircraft) is the ability to give a '2nd, 3rd or even 4th' new life to a rotary wing aircraft, it doesn't appear to be the massively big, difficult or overly expensive task it may be assumed to be, again, certainly as opposed to fixed wing aircraft.
If the current upgrade of Chinook from D to F didn't involve the complete replacement of the airframe, I have no doubt that Boeing probably would have been able to 're life' the existing aircraft, including the existing airframe, to F 'specification', just as all the previous upgrades that have performed, for example as I mentioned above, a 1961 produced A that is still flying today as a D.
The far bigger problem than any aging airframe issues are more about the aging 'systems' that are probably no longer in production or supported, as an example I read an article a couple of years ago about the transition from Blackhawk to MRH-90, and one of the problems was that Australia's Blackhawks were the only ones left in the world using 'analogue' engine control units instead of 'digital' control units, this has (or had) become an issue for Army to manage and keep on top of, eg, increased cost and increased risk.
This is a problem across all aging airframes (fixed or rotary), but it gives a good reason why it is good to get out of operating D's and moving to F's, I'm sure the D's have plenty of 'flying' life left in them, but it's all the other little bits and pieces that get harder and harder, and more expensive, to source and maintain.
Anyway, it probably would have been better if all of this discussion on Chinook had been over in the Army thread.
Cheers,