I think that is a tactics matter, the force needs to arrange itself in a way it can deal with these situations in a number of ways. You are also assuming that the infantries knowledge of building structures is non existent. Also imagine the burden on a force if its heavy lift element is stuck putting howitzers across the river...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.
I'm assuming nothing about bridge-building knowledge. Some rivers are too wide for bridgelayers. Bridging equipment is rare, & not necessarily where it's wanted. It can get destroyed by enemy action, for example. Building or repairing bridges without bridgelayers takes a long time. Boats aren't necessarily available (those pesky adversaries tend to remember to remove or sink them), or capable of carrying the loads you want to transport where you need to transport them.
So much for hoping that the RAAF would get more than 5 A330 tanker transports. If this report is correct it means that two of the five will be diverted to VIP work, which presumably will make them unavailable for general tanker/transport work. this sepresents a 60% loss in capability.
So much for hoping that the RAAF would get more than 5 A330 tanker transports. If this report is correct it means that two of the five will be diverted to VIP work, which presumably will make them unavailable for general tanker/transport work. this sepresents a 60% loss in capability.
They ARE essential. It was a theoretical discussion before and somewhat interesting, but in reality, ADF will NOT be losing it's CH-47 capability. Quite the opposite in fact with at least 3 and possibly 6 more CH-47F's to be introduced to Army from 2012.
Apart from cranes you mean?
The RAAF's KC-30's were intended to be fitted with a "standard" airliner type interior, with a "business class" cabin and an "economy class" section comprising the majority of the 230 odd seats.
I agree, hellicopter lift before air lift, although I like the Spartan. But I also like the LHDs and helicopters better. I'm not sure whether a Chinook will fit into a LHD hangar, however I do know they can ride on an LHD flight deck.
You didn't think they would always be tankers, did you? With passenger and freight combinations included with the aircraft, surely you expected the RAAF to use them for cargo and passengers too.
The issue with "losing" a few aircraft from tanking/transport roles for VIP service, is that the RAAF will only have a few aircraft available. Only 5 A330 MRTT aircraft are currently planned for service. If two of them end up assigned to VIP duties, even on a routine but not permanent duty, that is 40% of the RAAF tanker force. Keep in mind that is before any availability issues due to maintenance, training, etc.
Looking at the MRTT blerb the VIP configuration shoul dnot effect the aircraft tanker role. However, it si interesting the the last government id just fine wiht a BBJ and tis one wants na A330.
Exactly - a 'few' is a significant number when there are only five in inventory and one of those is likely to be in maintenance. When the RAAF used the 707s for VIP work as well as the tanker/transport role it had more than 5 in its peak inventory. Unless the options for additional aircraft are taken up this move will definitely represent a decline in planned capability for the tanker/transport role.
This topic on carlo and f-22 supporter co has been done to death. Anyone with any remote knowledge on australias requirements knows the above is BS as is bassically anything comming from their mouth. Can I ask please no more on these guys untill there is something new worth talking about; like one of them finally realises they have no idea and decides to shut up.
Hey I never said I agreed with this article. I know the F-35 will be a capable fighter and 4-8 AMRAAMs and 2 AIM-9s and a 25mm cannon is more than enough. I was just showing the article to see what people think of it thats all, did not mean any harm.
You are assuming the C-27J cant operate off the LHD.
Well i know the Spartan definitely wont fit the hanger.
I don't think anyone on this board takes him seriously, he has his own political ax to grind and for the last time Australia (or anyone else for that matter) will be getting F-22.
Are you saying it does. Are you prepared to fly it?
What a pile of BS. Thanks, I will cancel my Age subscription.