Agree about the authors especially Abraham Gubler who was a former poster here before my time and I wouldn't have been surprised was a Moderator or a DEFPRO at least. If Abraham wrote it then its pretty well spot on.
I haven't visited APA in years.
Royal Australian Air Force [RAAF] News, Discussions and Updates
I haven't visited APA in years.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
.
Not much point in visiting APA as there has been no new “stuff” posted to laugh at!
Boagrius
Well-Known Member
IIRC they now run the "Best Fighter for Australia" (BFA) Facebook page. My advice is not to inflict it on yourself ;-)
Some clarity for the C-27J is probably needed.
This article from Australian Aviation of a few years ago is a good overview of the aircraft.
A different beast – the RAAF’s C-27J Spartan
The C-27J is not a straight replacement for the RAAF’s much-loved Caribou, but nor is it a mini Hercules.
australianaviation.com.au
Like all flying things they all have their attributes.
Will certainly watch with interest the Spartans destiny and how the ADF manages this light / medium aviation logistic aviation space.
Regards S
Takao, the C-27J was a political gift from Labour to show that they were doing something for ADF at a time of defence stagnation. I've had more than one senior sir say to me that they were better than nothing. Anyone with an ounce of Air Lift knowledge knew it at the time. This aircraft was always a bastard son, particularly its ILS and training system. That is in no way a criticism of the hard-working peps of 35SQN.
I'll take your king for a day, and add my 30 years of fighting the fast jet dominated RAAF:
1. 24 new M/KC-130J for Air Lift, AAR & kinetic overwatch (our current C130J is buggered)
2. CH-47, AH-64 and all medium helo, given a/r AAR and are transferred back to RAAF after the failed Army coup
3. Some 20-30 Light aircraft (PC-12, Caravan, GippsAero Air10) for Light Comms, STOL (Aussi is a huge place)
I love the army, always have. Am Purple to a fault ... but helos are not 4 ton trucks. Stick to what you ground types know and leave the serious flying to the air force ( ... & navy).
PS. that in no way removes all the hard work and professionalism of army aircrews.
t68
Well-Known Member
What a condescending post towards the Army, one would think no one in the Army has an education over year 10
Sorry I don’t agree with the idea that the rotary aircraft should go back to being RAAF. The primary job of the rotary fleet is supporting troops on the ground. It appears under the principle that you provide is that if they were in RAAF colours then any problems would disappear
Please do tell how the RAAF would do a better job in supporting the rotary fleet. The way you paint the picture is if it flys it’s RAAF if it floats it should be RAN if it moves on land it should be Army
Why not put all RAAF/RAN land vechiles hand over to Army. All Army water craft to the RAN and so forth.
It’s about having the correct structure and training and budget to do the job
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
I don’t have a dog in this fight but the RCAF has total control over all Canadian aviation assets, not sure when this happened (likely after the RCN lost their last carrier in 1968), not sure if the army ever had air assets. I assume bean counters thought this was cost effective at the time , maybe it is but I don’t know. Today, it is all about minimizing defence.
You mean like the MRH-90 success story?
regarding other comments, The RAF operate, with minimal fuss, the significant bulk of UK Support Helicopter Fleet.
————————————————
I think the decision underscores 2 things.
1) increasing understanding and awareness of EWSP, and other survivability assessments, across the ADF. For example, until relatively recently battlefield airlifters of all types had relatively limited EWSP until after the increased commitment of the ADF to the MEAO. At the time this level of risk had previously been deemed acceptable. It’s been said before that Timor and Falconer were massive wake up calls in the level of preparedness for a proper fight.
2) differing levels of risk acceptance as times evolve. As much as the guys and girls on the frontline are going to be ready to push the levels of operational risk allowed by commanders has evolved (devolved?) over time.
my perception is that the C-27J will still be able to play an important support role in many areas, even in combat operations; there’s always ass and trash to move from A-B, even just back from the frontline. However it’s plainly apparent the willingness to deploy them in high risk activities is obviously low. Was it the right decision at the time? Don’t know. Should we have bought more C-130J; almost certainly.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
So you would transfer the Helicopters from the Army who have been operating Helicopters consistently for over 50 years and transfer them to the RAAF who haven’t operated Helicopters in nearly 30 years.
t68
Well-Known Member
The intent is to show that problems are not service specific, handing the helicopters to the RAAF would not have affected the outcome of the Taipan MRH-90
Remember at one time the Government put the CH-47 out to pasture as a cost saving measure should that then reflect badly on Army should the SeaSprite affair reflect badly on RAN mmm
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #7,612
If memory serves, the selection of the NH90 as the base platform was a GOTD decision, with Army instead preferring the updated variant of the Black Hawk then under development by Sikorsky. I find it rather hard to assign major fault to Army for encountering issues getting a problematic design into service when it was not even the one Army wanted IIRC.
I think that where possible each service is better off operating their own equipment. As soon as you find yourself in a situation where you are dependent on co-operation with another service you have to deal with another layer of bureaucracy, different agendas and conflicts of interest. Part of me thinks that one of the problems with the C-27A is that the air force might not be that invested in the battlefield lifter role.
Big assets such as the LHD and large transport aircraft are still best left in the hands of the navy and air force respectively because of the expertise required to operate them. Everything else should go to whoever will get the most value out of them.
Big assets such as the LHD and large transport aircraft are still best left in the hands of the navy and air force respectively because of the expertise required to operate them. Everything else should go to whoever will get the most value out of them.
Gryphinator
Active Member
If they're being used for FEBA work (Casevac, ass and trash etc) give them to the Army if the RAAF feel they're a liability in a war zone.
Their true worth will be worked out pretty quick.
As for self protection, I'd argue that many other ADF assets (Arafura class for example) should have better self protection measures.
Their true worth will be worked out pretty quick.
As for self protection, I'd argue that many other ADF assets (Arafura class for example) should have better self protection measures.
Last edited:
Governments motivations to make these decisions are usually driven primarily by politics with trade optics often been front and centre. Back in the early to mid 2000's both the Canada, Australia and New Zealand were still highly tuned to the opportunities of the new EU and the maintenance of agricultural trade access. In earlier post-war decades it was very common. In the mid 1960's there was a huge bun fight between National Airways the domestic forerunner to Air NZ owned by the government with the politicians and bureaucrats, because Air New Zealand sensibly wanted to by the American Boeing 737 and the government wanted the British BAC-111 because they feared diminished trade access into the UK market.
It's horses for courses. The army have their own helos because they require crews who think army especially in the ARH role. Just like navy have their own helos for naval roles. It's logical, unless you are the USAF but we won't go down that service political rathole.
Pretty poor justification. The Arafura class are not intended to go into serious harms way, and the C-27 are.
oldsig
I have to apologise to you as well. I shouldn't been so cranky in my reply to you. For that I am sorry
Whilst I do agree with you. That simple battlefield airlifter has unique properties which no modern western equivalent has. It is the Don Bradman of small transports. It could deliver its load anywhere desired. As I told my wife I would marry it if it was legal
Regards
DD
Last edited:
I seem to recall a post here on DT about back in the days of RAAF control, of an army unit unable to get UH1s to train on because they were tasked to fly the RAAF rugby team to a match.
This may be the bad old days but people still remember.
Perhaps a unit whose main function is to support the army should be part of the army.