Royal Australian Air Force [RAAF] News, Discussions and Updates
Word has it that the current 6 airframes were being worked so hard that more were needed to maintain capability while others were in maintenance.
I have no written source for this, only anecdotal and word of mouth evidence.
Nonetheless the C-17's have proven to be a thoughtful investment.
MB
I have no written source for this, only anecdotal and word of mouth evidence.
Nonetheless the C-17's have proven to be a thoughtful investment.
MB
Sort of correct...
The optimal size of a squadron of aircraft, particularly aircraft with a strategic reach that can be gone for days at a time, is more than the six we currently have. All we need is for one to be away, one to be in maintenance, and one or two to go u/s, and suddenly the fleet is halved or worse.
When we went from four to six, that effectively doubled the fleet's capability. Going from six to eight will go close to doing the same.
t68
Well-Known Member
So Ineffect what really is needed is a Squadron capabilty(12) 4 in maintenance at any one time leaving 8 for international and domestic duties, my well grab them while they are available I say and be done with it.
I had heard that with the tempo of operations, the C-17's had up to four in maintenance at one time leaving a very skinny capability.
MB
weegee
Active Member
That is good news about the C-17. I just came across this article its states that Mr Johnson said that they want 2 and possibly another 2 depending on the outcome of the white paper etc. A fleet of 10 would be very nice very nice indeed.
Australia to buy up to four more C-17s - 10/3/2014 - Flight Global
Edit: I actually just found this and it doesn't mention a further 2 to make 4 at all so maybe just the 2 after all, still better than nothing.
http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/...e-purchase-of-two-c-17a-globemaster-aircraft/
Australia to buy up to four more C-17s - 10/3/2014 - Flight Global
Edit: I actually just found this and it doesn't mention a further 2 to make 4 at all so maybe just the 2 after all, still better than nothing.
http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/...e-purchase-of-two-c-17a-globemaster-aircraft/
John Newman
The Bunker Group
When I read the Def Mins statement earlier today (had to read it a couple of times!), I found the wording a little confusing too, is it two additional C-17A's now and the possibility of another two to be considered as part of the DWP too?
The first two paragraphs:
And then the last paragraph:
Sort of reads like two now and possibly another two as well, interesting!!
Amberley will certainly start to be a crowded place in a few years, 8 (+2?) C-17A's, 5 (+2?) KC-30A's, 36 Super Hornet / Growlers and the news a few days ago that the 10 C-27J's will also be based there too.
Would assume that a $Billion or so would have to be spent on base upgrades and infrastructure, certainly all good for the local economy in and around the Amberley area.
On the other side of the coin, probably not so good news for economy of the Richmond/Windsor area (with the C-27J's now not going to be based there), makes me wonder what the long term future for Richmond will be with only the one Sqn of 12 C-130J's based there.
Anyway, good news on the C-17A's, two or four? That is the question!
The first two paragraphs:
And then the last paragraph:
Sort of reads like two now and possibly another two as well, interesting!!
Amberley will certainly start to be a crowded place in a few years, 8 (+2?) C-17A's, 5 (+2?) KC-30A's, 36 Super Hornet / Growlers and the news a few days ago that the 10 C-27J's will also be based there too.
Would assume that a $Billion or so would have to be spent on base upgrades and infrastructure, certainly all good for the local economy in and around the Amberley area.
On the other side of the coin, probably not so good news for economy of the Richmond/Windsor area (with the C-27J's now not going to be based there), makes me wonder what the long term future for Richmond will be with only the one Sqn of 12 C-130J's based there.
Anyway, good news on the C-17A's, two or four? That is the question!
I think its just two. The FMS quote is the original story. The White paper will decide if they will they will be purchased. There are only 10 additional units to be made, I find it highly unlikely the Australia would get 4 of those 10.
Richmond has been very busy recently, C130, C17, F-18 SH, F-18 classic have all been seen operating out of it. There were at least 4 F-18 buzzing my work place the other week.
There was a recent story where it was claimed C-17's were having issues landing there in strong crosswinds, they have been very regular sights with usually one or two there the whole time. Richmond is also not under any pressure to take commercial flights now Badgerys creek is coming online.
Surprised with the 2 extra C-17's. I think they are worthwhile, but Im sure the Navy and related industry would like/need and the army has lots of needs again, unfunded or not yet purchased.
It's 2 now, and possibly 2 more as part of the White Paper - I called the Minister's media advisor to clarify and she agreed the statement had been poorly worded.
As for Army and Navy having needs - the C-17 is a very purple airplane, and all three services benefit equally from its capabilities.
As for Army and Navy having needs - the C-17 is a very purple airplane, and all three services benefit equally from its capabilities.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Canada should be expanding its C-17 fleet as well. With no viable replacement on the horizon, at least two more should be ordered while we still can. With Australia and India's planned additions the whitetail production is just about done. Perhaps Boeing should have allowed a little more time for the C-17 line, especially considering the A400M's slow progress and it is only a "sort of strategic" airlifter.
Sounds like the words straight from an Air Marshall...
I wonder what some of our Generals might think (privately) about such a statement...
Sounds like the words straight from an Air Marshall...
I wonder what some of our Generals might think (privately) about such a statement...
4 aircraft, wow, thats pretty big boost (and big order), we are taking 40% of the total worldwide "spare" production. The C17 is a fantastic aircraft, and yes, it can be particularly helpful for the humanitarian, army (although less purple for the navy?).
If we had a requirement/need for 10 aircraft, why did we only initially order 4?
I wonder if we knew from the outset if we were getting 10 C-17 would we have changed the number of C-130's or C27J's. Was it just one of those things that proved themselves in service?
I don't think the RAAF has or is getting a single capability that it doesn't need and can't be justified but you have to wonder about how the army and to a lesser degree the RAN are missing out on usually significantly cheaper game changing capabilities. For example, while Beersheba is changing things the army is still basically an under / obsoletely equipped light infantry force lacking many of the capabilities, such as SPGs, Armoured Engineers that would be transformational and the navy is making do with patrol boats when commonsense screams they should have OPVs.
Again I am not saying the RAAFshould do without any of their capabilities but I am curious as to why it is apparently so difficult for the other services to get the, often much cheaper, capabilities they need.
Again I am not saying the RAAFshould do without any of their capabilities but I am curious as to why it is apparently so difficult for the other services to get the, often much cheaper, capabilities they need.
It's an interesting point. Most of the arguments about RAAF are fixated on the capability to be bought. Is the F-35A right, should we be buying F-22 instead and so on. Whether we should buy a new airforce capability at ALL is rarely ever debated.
But it most certainly is with Army and Navy...
Army's rifle is 30 years old. It's APC's (albeit upgraded) are 50 years old and it's recon vehicle is 30 years old.
It's indirect fire support capability is a newer version of a 50+ year old paradigm (ie: airmobile 'capable' guns that are primarily towed behind un-armoured 'tractors' - trucks and are operated from fire support bases...)
Yet, propose replacing any if these things with a modern solution generates so many negative responses, it's unbelievable.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
The RAAF isn't the only airforce that seems to be able to get a bigger slice of the pie. Despite Canada's horrible defence procurement history on many projects, the RCAF has had some success, 4 C-17s, 15 C130Js, and 15 CH-47s. During the same period the army got some used Leo2s and APVs, the RCN...bugger all. If and when the fighter replacement happens along with the delayed naval ship building program, the army can expect some incredibly lean years.
It has long been said that the air forces are better at staff work than the other services but I think it is more than that, I am not entirely sure but I suspect part of it may be everyone, even politicians, secretly wants to be a fighter pilot. Also, where risk adverse politicians are concerned a well equipped air force provides many options to be seen to be doing something without fully committing, minimal chances of friendly casualties and plenty of photo opportunities.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
I think your comment perfectly sums up why air forces are more successful with their kit procurements.
Yeah, all of that, but in reality, ten thousand soldiers with state of the art rifles wont shoot down an enemy strike fighter flying at mach 1 towards Darwin, nither will the best 155.
Nothing can compare to DEFENCE of a large country with a small population better than state of the art fighter aircraft or purpose built maritime aircraft. Nothing can get spplies, or move troops faster than transport aircraft.
In short, as much as army and navy need great equipment, the Defence of our countries really relies on a sotar (state of the art) airforce, and their preference and priority of the defence budget is justified imo.
Nothing can compare to DEFENCE of a large country with a small population better than state of the art fighter aircraft or purpose built maritime aircraft. Nothing can get spplies, or move troops faster than transport aircraft.
In short, as much as army and navy need great equipment, the Defence of our countries really relies on a sotar (state of the art) airforce, and their preference and priority of the defence budget is justified imo.
I am not for one second saying the RAAF should have less capability than they have, I am rather questioning why the other services, the army in particular lack certain key capabilities that are as, if not more so, game changing, as well as being substantially cheaper, than some of the RAAFs new capabilities.