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

[rjmaz1]

There's more to it than one big load. I don't have the flight profiles, but I'd be prepared to bet that there are objects which a single NH-90 can carry a short distance, but which to get to somewhere further away, or higher, would need a larger helicopter - e.g. a Chinook.

That doesn't make sense. Of course if you put 3,000kg in a NH-90 and in a Chinook then the Chinook will fly further. The Chinook is a bigger helicopter. Split that 3,000kg into two 1,500kg loads and the MH-90's will travel just as far as the Chinook with a single 3,000kg load.

If you had the 3,000kg load in a NH-90 i agree it wont get far, but put two of these loads in a Chinook and it wont get far either with 6,000kg of payload.

I can recall a similar statement being made by Kim Beazley when he retired the first RAAF Chinook Squadron way back when. Apparently two Blackhawks could do the same job as a Chook.

You missed the whole point of my post discussing overlap. Two Blackhawks cannot replace the Chinook if the next largest aircraft is a C-130. That is a massive gap to bridge and is definitely a crazy statement by Kim Beazley. It also has nothing to do with what im trying to say. There would be a lot of missions that cannot be performed by either the C-130 or the blackhawks in this case. Going from a 10 tonne helicopter to a 70+ tonne C-130J is crazy.

If you have a C-27J all of a sudden that step up from a 10 tonne NH-90 to a 30 tonne C-27J starts to makes sense.

Both the U.K and Australia had no STOL aircraft to deliver a 5 tonne load to a football field landing strip. They needed the Chinooks to fill that gap im not arguing that point. Order the C-27J and it changes.

[ame="http://youtube.com/watch?v=T6ZeZdQqrFQ"]YouTube - Airborne Warfare: C-27J STOL 200 Foot Short Field Landing![/ame]

[ame="http://youtube.com/watch?v=fzdlB_1Zbvk"]YouTube - Airborne Warfare: C-27J Maximum TO & L Performance[/ame]

That gap between the medium weight helicopter and a fixed wing transport that has been previously filled by the Chinook has all but been eliminated with the C-27J. Sure there might be that 1 in a 1000 mission that only the Chinook could have done, but the money saving is worth it.

 

[swerve]

That doesn't make sense. Of course if you put 3,000kg in a NH-90 and in a Chinook then the Chinook will fly further. The Chinook is a bigger helicopter. Split that 3,000kg into two 1,500kg loads and the MH-90's will travel just as far as the Chinook with a single 3,000kg load.

If you had the 3,000kg load in a NH-90 i agree it wont get far, but put two of these loads in a Chinook and it wont get far either with 6,000kg of payload....

It makes perfect sense. I said "objects", i.e. single things, non-splittable loads. You obviously missed that, because you decided to split what I'd specified as non-splittable.

Factor it in, & stop splitting your hypothetical 3000 kg load. Assume it's a vehicle, or an artillery piece. Now what do you do when you need to get it to somewhere an NH-90 can't go with that size load, because it's farther or higher than it can fly with that weight? Simple: you use a bigger helicopter.

That gap between the medium weight helicopter and a fixed wing transport that has been previously filled by the Chinook has all but been eliminated with the C-27J. Sure there might be that 1 in a 1000 mission that only the Chinook could have done, but the money saving is worth it.

You mean like the 1 in 1000 missions in Afghanistan? The RAF is using Chinooks there for jobs that Pumas can do in lower, cooler conditions, & that no fixed-wing aircraft can do anywhere, & is crying out for more of them. No Chinooks means you drive or walk through hostile country, or sometimes, just don't do it at all. Tell them the money saving from not buying Chinooks would have been worth it.

What if Ozzie troops ever find themselves in such a situation (in PNG, maybe?) acting alone?

Sometimes, you just need a big brute.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Excessive overlap in my opinion.

Last time i looked the Chinook could not carry 8,000kg's at 500km/h to a distance of 2,000kms

The Chinook has high maintenance and running costs. Two MRH-90's can carry the same load as a single Chinook over the same distance.

The only capability you will loose is the ability to carry a single heavy object that cannot be split between two MRH-90's

And that is EXACTLY why a Chinook is so valuable. Look where the Chinook is based in Australia.

The basing is a VERY big hint as to why it was in ADF service, was brought back when medium helos proved inadequate and WILL remain in-service until something better exists.

The Chinooks are mainly to support Australian artillery. An MRH-90 "might" be able to lift an M198 howitzer (although without stats at hand I'm prepared to say it can NOT) but it won't take it very far. Nor will it be able to lift the crew AND ammunition to support it.

A Chinook can.

The last time I looked, a C-27J or an MRH-90 could not land an M-198 or a Unimog truck vertically.

A Chinook can.

In terms of overall lift capacity, a Chinook might be matched or even exceeded by 2x MRH-90's. But 2x MRH-90's can NOT lift an M-198 gun between them nor a Unimog truck.

A Chinook can.

The list goes on, but for all their expense, Chinooks can do, what NOTHING else in ADF service can do.

 

[rjmaz1]

Assume it's a vehicle, or an artillery piece. Now what do you do when you need to get it to somewhere an NH-90 can't go with that size load, because it's farther or higher than it can fly with that weight?

Well with the C-130J having to land say 200 miles from the front line you'll need the Chinook to carry such a heavy artillery piece that distance. However with the C-27J it could land only 50 miles from the front line. All of a sudden that short distance you can use a smaller helicopter.

In terms of overall lift capacity, a Chinook might be matched or even exceeded by 2x MRH-90's. But 2x MRH-90's can NOT lift an M-198 gun between them nor a Unimog truck.

A Chinook can.

True the M-198 is a heavy beast. The US is replacing it with a lighter gun, if we also upgrade, then one of the main reasons for keeping the Chinook has all but gone.

So if/when the M-198 gets replaced by the M777 in Australian service there isn't any single heavy item that the NH-90 wouldn't be able

It might not be able to carry the crew of ammunition to support such a gun but thats what the second NH-90 is for.

Regarding the Unimog truck or any heavy vehicle for that matter; The C-27J would be able to get it so close to the front line that it could just drive itself to its destination. Now you dont even need a helicopter at all!

The list goes on, but for all their expense, Chinooks can do, what NOTHING else in ADF service can do.

I agree, we dont have C-27J's yet

If enough money could be saved by reducing the number of aircraft types would you be willing sacrifice half a dozen Chinook's to buy a dozen C-27J's?

Would you sacrifice that now small niche mission for such a large overall increase in transport?

I know i would. If maintenance and operating costs were free, we'd have 100 different aircraft types each performing a unique mission. In real life it doesn't work like that.

I think everyone has misunderstood me.

Would i take 6 C-27J's instead of 6 Chinooks? God no! Not once have i said this.

Would i take 12 C-27J's instead of 6 Chinooks? I think we all would.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Would i take 12 C-27J's instead of 6 Chinooks? I think we all would.

actually a number of blokes who do the actual warfighting would disagree completely.

again, the cogent lesson for the aust army, and a lesson that has been learnt under expense from the UK and canadians (amongst others) is that STOL is no substitute for VTOL.

why do you think the push is for uprated chinooks by specforces operators in a number of military communities. why do you think that some still want the V-22 even though it carries less than the C-27J under certain op conditions.

If its a toss up between 12 uprated chooks or 12 spartans, the warfighters will pick the chooks.

 

[PeterM]

If its a toss up between 12 uprated chooks or 12 spartans, the warfighters will pick the chooks.

Is the Osprey (possibly the long-range Special Operations CV-22 developed for US Special Operations Command) a viable alternative for the ADF to replace the CH-47D?

 

[lobbie111]

Since everyone has had their dream lists I will put mine in:

1) Replace the Caribou on a 1:1 with the EADS CN-235-300

2) Replace half the hercules fleet with more C17's

3) Replace the remaining hercules with new builds (until a suitable replacement comes along)

4) Replace Chinooks with new builds until a Bigger, safer vesrion of the Osprey comes out

5) Replace all blackhawks with MRH-90's

6) Give reserves Blackhawks

7) Replace Kiowa with Bell ARH

Just my 2c

 

[gf0012-aust]

Is the Osprey a viable alternative for the ADF?

Personally speaking, and based on other discussions I've had with a member who was involved in an associated project, I'd say no.

• Logistics burden - esp in the current political climate
• uprated chooks are a far better choice as they have a greater flexibility across various mission spectrum
• let the cousins work out the operating bugs - then maybe pick it up if it makes sense (which it still doesn't to me anyway)
• limited internal dimensions would cut out a significant quantum of gear that we need carried - again, the chook is a better fit (and quieter again when special gear is fitted)
• lousy footprint means that it's restricted in opportunity ad hoc requirements

In short. No

 

[rjmaz1]

If its a toss up between 12 uprated chooks or 12 spartans, the warfighters will pick the chooks.

I'd take 12 Chinooks over 12 C-27J's also.

But would the warfighters pick 6 uprated chinooks over 12 C-27J's?

Or in the case of the V-22 would they take 3 Ospreys for the price of 12 C-27J's?

Because thats a more realistic comparison if we're talking buying new airframes as the C-27J is cheaper per unit and operating less aircraft types will allow for more units to be purchased in total.

Is the Osprey a viable alternative for the ADF to replace the CH-47D?

In addition to gf's post the Osprey also costs considerably more. Nearly twice the cost of a CH-46D and more than twice the cost of the C-27J. Pretty poor considering the C-27J carries more payload, faster and further than the Osprey, it only needs a football field to land. With the money saved Australia could in addition to the C-27J purchase buy more conventional helicopters giving more overall capability at a lower price.

The Osprey isn't good bang for your buck. The US operate such a large quantity of aircraft that they can afford to operate so many aircraft types include niche aircraft like the V-22. Australia doesn't have the budget to allow for such niche capabilities IMO.

*snip*

Only problem i see is the massive gap between the C-17 (strategic) and CN-235 (tactical). Splitting the load from the C-17 with a maximum takeoff weight of 265,000kg into a tiny aircraft with a maxiumum takeoff weight of only 16,000kg is completely unrealistic. The Spartans larger cross section means items can go in straight from the C-17.

 

[lobbie111]

Only problem i see is the massive gap between the C-17 (strategic) and CN-235 (tactical). Splitting the load from the C-17 with a maximum takeoff weight of 265,000kg into a tiny aircraft with a maxiumum takeoff weight of only 16,000kg is completely unrealistic. The Spartans larger cross section means items can go in straight from the C-17.

The Airforce get on with that "issue" today, plus you are forgetting what they are used for. Caribous are mainly used for tactical unit insertion not transport of supplies thats a helicopters job as far as the ADF is concerned.

Plus it is completely unfeasible to go from the C-17's load and splitting it into CN-235's or C-27J you would have to get the whole squadron there to do it, which again is ridiculous.

I chose the CN-235 because of it's STOL (even more so than the C-27) not because of its cargo capacity, this was the reason the caribou was chosen

 

[swerve]

Well with the C-130J having to land say 200 miles from the front line you'll need the Chinook to carry such a heavy artillery piece that distance. However with the C-27J it could land only 50 miles from the front line. All of a sudden that short distance you can use a smaller helicopter.

True the M-198 is a heavy beast. The US is replacing it with a lighter gun, if we also upgrade, then one of the main reasons for keeping the Chinook has all but gone.

So if/when the M-198 gets replaced by the M777 in Australian service there isn't any single heavy item that the NH-90 wouldn't be able

It might not be able to carry the crew of ammunition to support such a gun but thats what the second NH-90 is for.

Regarding the Unimog truck or any heavy vehicle for that matter; The C-27J would be able to get it so close to the front line that it could just drive itself to its destination. Now you dont even need a helicopter at all!

I agree, we dont have C-27J's yet

If enough money could be saved by reducing the number of aircraft types would you be willing sacrifice half a dozen Chinook's to buy a dozen C-27J's?

Would you sacrifice that now small niche mission for such a large overall increase in transport?

I know i would. If maintenance and operating costs were free, we'd have 100 different aircraft types each performing a unique mission. In real life it doesn't work like that.

I think everyone has misunderstood me.

Would i take 6 C-27J's instead of 6 Chinooks? God no! Not once have i said this.

Would i take 12 C-27J's instead of 6 Chinooks? I think we all would.

I'm getting that banging my head against a brick wall feeling. . .

What makes you think an NH-90 can carry an M777? According to NH Industries its maximum load is ">2500 kg" - probably not a huge amount more, & these things are usually measured in fairly benign conditions. No chance of lifting an M777 in one load. The M777 splits, but the heavier part has been reported as 2414 kg. Now, let us consider what happens to the lifting capacity of a helicopter in adverse conditions, such as very high temperatures, high altitudes, or (worst of all) both. Nope. Still need a bigger helicopter.

Sometimes, you need to lift equipment over obstacles. Imagine - there's a bridge down. You need to get some stuff across the gap, & can't wait until the gap is bridged, or boats are brought in. "Sorry, we didn't buy heavy lift helicopters to save money. Drive your stuff back to the nearest airfield, & we'll fly it to the nearest airstrip on the other side of the river. Of course, you'll have to secure it first. What? That's what you want those loads lifted over for?"

Of course, you also need the NH-90s. Can't use Chinooks for everything. Horrible waste of money, for a start. But sometimes, you need a Chinook, or something else that can do roughly the same job.

 

[Goknub]

Given the option I think the Army would prefer 6 Chinooks to 12 C27Js. For moving gear about the larger C130s/C17s are more useful and for forward resupply/insertion helicopters are the only real option.

The Caribou may have made sense in Vietnam but not today. We've far better served with more of what we already have in order to better sustain OS operations. While the US may seen a useful role for C27Js, for an army our size it is simple wasting limited resource's on a "nice-to-have" capability.

I'd like to see:
8 C17s (we'll be using them for 50 years so may as well get extras now!)
16 C130Js (split 50/50 with the extended versions)
24 CH47s

 

[rjmaz1]

What makes you think an NH-90 can carry an M777? According to NH Industries its maximum load is ">2500 kg" - probably not a huge amount more, & these things are usually measured in fairly benign conditions. No chance of lifting an M777 in one load. The M777 splits, but the heavier part has been reported as 2414 kg.

The 2500kg payload is the approximate maxium limit while also carrying maximum fuel. The Chinooks published maximum payload includes the aircraft carrying a fraction of its fuel capacity. Its sacrificing fuel for payload.

The NH-90 can do the same thing, 2414kg would be easy for it to lift. Even on worse case hot high conditions. Plus as the C-27J couuld get the item so close to the front line the NH-90 wouldn't have to travel as far so sacrificing fuel for payload would not be an issue. So 4000+ could be carried for short trips, 2414kg will be easy even on hot/high missions. Though if you didn't have the C-27J then payload might have to travel further to reach the front line and the NH-90 might not make the distance if it sacrifices fuel for payload.

But sometimes, you need a Chinook, or something else that can do roughly the same job.

I've agreed to this part in all three posts now. Im starting to get that head banging on the wall feeling also.

Removing the Chinooks now with the C-130J would leave a large gap in missed capability. That "sometimes you need a Chinook" would see it needed quite often. With the C-27J it wouldn't be needed as much.

Sacrificing the number of aircraft types gives greater total numbers of the fewer types operating, increasing overall capability. - This is the same reason we wont go with the F-22, we'll have fewer total number of aircraft because we needed a niche A2A fighter. The end result is reduced overall capability. The F-35 gives as sufficient overlap for our missions. If we want complete overlap we may need a few F-22's, a couple A-10 and a few F-35B's to give complete overlap. However capability will no be less due to fewer numbers.

Would you take 100 C-27J's over 6 Chinooks for the SAME price? I'll exagerate the different to prove a point, of course ull take the 100 C-27J's as it would bring a 10 fold increase in overall capability/capacity. That "sometimes" mission now seems insignificant.

Its all about systems overlap. If the top is the C-17 and the bottom is the NH-90. How many platforms do you need between these two extremes to get sufficient overlap, not complete overlap. If you require one platoform bwteen these two extremes it has to be equally spaced thus the C-27J. If you want two platforms between these two extremes the larger platform will be closer to the C-17 in size such as the C-130J, and the medium sized platform will be closer to the NH-90 in size such as a Chinook.

Goknub for instance has picked two platforms between the two extremes.
C-17 -> C-130 -> CH-47 -> NH-90.

I've picked one platform between the two extremes as it WILL give a larger total number of aircraft, and i debate that it will give increased overall capability to the RAAF.

 

[Aussie Digger]

True the M-198 is a heavy beast. The US is replacing it with a lighter gun, if we also upgrade, then one of the main reasons for keeping the Chinook has all but gone.

But there isn't much WRONG with the M-198. It's going to cost a LOT to replace them. The M-777 seems likely to be additional to, not a replacement, IMHO.

It might not be able to carry the crew of ammunition to support such a gun but thats what the second NH-90 is for.

Can you say for certain that 2x MRH-90's are cheaper to fly than a single Chook? I'm not so sure. Particularly if you factor in the power and fuel efficiency improvements that have been made to our Chooks and will come with any future "F" model upgrade however that is conducted.

Plus you require greater pilots numbers. 3 brigade doesn't need to move 1 gun. It needs to move a battery or a regiment's worth of guns. Starting to employ 12x MRH-90's for a job 6x Chinooks can do is starting to employ a LOT of additional pilot/navigator and loadmaster resources, with considerable performance effects for carrying such heavy loads...

Regarding the Unimog truck or any heavy vehicle for that matter; The C-27J would be able to get it so close to the front line that it could just drive itself to its destination. Now you dont even need a helicopter at all!

I don't think you quite get the idea behind the employment of helos in tactical maneuvre scenarios.

Why not simply hook up the guns to these trucks, put the troops into the back of the trucks and dispense with helos all together... :unknown

Let us HOPE an airfield will always be so close, eh?

If enough money could be saved by reducing the number of aircraft types would you be willing sacrifice half a dozen Chinook's to buy a dozen C-27J's?

Nope. The money is available to acquire additional Chinooks AND a C-27/C-295 battlefield airlifter anyway. I cannot see ANY operational circumstance where VTOL capability wouldn't be needed, if air transport IS needed...

Would you sacrifice that now small niche mission for such a large overall increase in transport?

No. The increase in airlift is coming anyway. Your preferred option would lose ALL helicopter borne heavy lift capability from the ADF order of battle. It is NOT a niche capability. It is an ESSENTIAL capability, one that has been too limited for FAR too long.

Niche capability? 4x Chinooks can carry an entire infantry company. You are looking at a minimum of 6x MRH-90's for that level of airlift.

6x Chinooks can deploy an entire artilllery battery, their crews, ammunition and the CP.

I seriously doubt even 12x MRH-90's could do that, much as I like the MRH-90, for IT'S job.

Here are some reminders of what a Chinook CAN do. I hardly consider it a "niche" capability...

http://www.boeing.com/companyoffices/gallery/images/military/rotorcraft/ch47sd/ch47sdphotos.html

http://www.boeing.com/companyoffices/gallery/images/military/rotorcraft/ch47d/ch47dphotos.html

I know i would. If maintenance and operating costs were free, we'd have 100 different aircraft types each performing a unique mission. In real life it doesn't work like that.

Yes, but thanks to AIR-9000, we WILL have substantially reduced our airframe types (and therefore maintenance) already, whilst simultaneously increasing our airlift capacity and NOT losing capability in ANY area. Your plan would see a significant capability loss to ADF as a whole.

 

[lobbie111]

I've picked one platform between the two extremes as it WILL give a larger total number of aircraft, and i debate that it will give increased overall capability to the RAAF.

Heli's are an ARMY matter...That's why this has confused me so much.

As gf or AD said the basing of the heli's gives you an indication of their requirements. Everyone is also ignoring the blatantly obvious it would take 3 MRH-90's to carry a platoon (with gear) where it would take 1-2 Chinooks (depending on the role of the platoon) to carry that many. Also you have to consider the internal room of the aircraft, a chinook is roughly that same as a caribou only longer internally whereas the MRH-90 Couldn't fit a land rover inside it. Your talking about more usable space in the Chook than the MRH-90, that and the unsplittable load capability gives the chook that :nutkick over the MRH-90.

 

[Navor86]

My money's on...

1) C-27J FINALLY being selected to replace Caribou - decision in early 09, service entry 2012, 14-16 aircraft. As AD says, C-27J gives alot of bang for the buck - cheaper to acquire and operate than a Herc and not much less capable. Far more capable than a Bou expect on wet and rough strips (but what can a Bou carry into and out of such strips anyway?). The Caribous MUST be gone by 2013 as they have major hydraulic and electrical issues falling due by then.

2) C-130H being retained until 2014. Operational fleet of eight kept going from a pool of 12 aircraft, upgraded with DIRCM Light.

3) 12-16 A400Ms being acquired to replace C-130H and C-130J from 2014 to 2018 (C-130Js will be 20 years old by then). The A400M can get into any strip a C-130 can, but is 3 x a C-27J, 2 x a Herc, and 1/2 x a C-17 - it's a nice fit.

4) Additional three CH-47Fs to be confirmed early next year along with three more. CH-47Ds to go through CH-47F reman process.

5) Whether an additional C-17 or two is acquired is probably 50:50 at the moment, however I suspect that political window may have closed.

Cheers

How likely is it that 6 add CH47 will be procured?Or are those Numbers just a wishfull thinking?

 

[Magoo]

How likely is it that 6 add CH47 will be procured?Or are those Numbers just a wishfull thinking?

Very likely!

 

[rjmaz1]

Very likely!

Wow if you are correct that sounds like a fairly comprehensive airlift capability

4 C-17
12-14 A400M
14-16 C-27J
12 CH-47
46 NH-90

 

[RubiconNZ]

The additional purchase was announced just on the DL with the outgoing days of the old Government, the decision I suppose would be under review by the current Gov, I can't imagine a outgoing government approving anything in the last month just so the new Gov will refuse it.

 

[StingrayOZ]

I think the CH-47 would be on the must haves.

They have proved so essential to so many operations. Given that we will have atleast 2 LHD's capable of operating and hangering a chook, I would say there is even more demand for them over and above what we already need.

Chook is the only heavy lift thing we have that can pull big things on or off a LHD. It would also be one of the more effective. The LHD are primary air focused so to get the most out of those $2 billion purchases you need a good heavy lift helicopter.