C-27J replacement?
A commercial something of similar size or bigger , or are we looking at something much smaller, like the in service beech craft super king air.
Too little to go on at this stage
Cheers S
Royal Australian Air Force [RAAF] News, Discussions and Updates
A commercial something of similar size or bigger , or are we looking at something much smaller, like the in service beech craft super king air.
Too little to go on at this stage
Cheers S
On the subject of replacing the E-7 it is interesting to look at the direction the Swedes are taking with their LocalEye concept. Something like this could end up being part of the puzzle when it comes to eventually replacing the the Wedgetail.
Successful first flight of the world’s first Unmanned Airborne Early Warning solution
Saab and General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc. (GA-ASI) have successfully completed the first flight of the world’s first unmanned Airborne Early Warning (AEW) solution. This important achievement was made possible by integrating Saab’s LoyalEye radar sensor with GA-ASI’s unmanned MQ-9B...
www.google.com
Assuming that the future is C17 and 20 C130J’s I’d guess you may want to have a plane of a different size to what’s in service so maybe Caravan or Kodiak sized may have merit.
As we are now AUKUS besties, I’d look at purchasing some additional USAF C 17s and then plan the rest of our logistical fleet.
Cheers S
Does the USAF have a surplus? Last I heard they were thinking about restarting production, which implies not.
Could the Loyal eye be added to existing R.A.A.F under Air 7000 Phase 1B purchase of 7 high altitude long endurance maritime surveilance uav,s?On the subject of replacing the E-7 it is interesting to look at the direction the Swedes are taking with their LocalEye concept. Something like this could end up being part of the puzzle when it comes to eventually replacing the the Wedgetail.
Successful first flight of the world’s first Unmanned Airborne Early Warning solution
Saab and General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc. (GA-ASI) have successfully completed the first flight of the world’s first unmanned Airborne Early Warning (AEW) solution. This important achievement was made possible by integrating Saab’s LoyalEye radar sensor with GA-ASI’s unmanned MQ-9B...
Now find a way to launch and recover from th LHDs. Then ensure any future fleet plans include multiple ships with large flat decks.On the subject of replacing the E-7 it is interesting to look at the direction the Swedes are taking with their LocalEye concept. Something like this could end up being part of the puzzle when it comes to eventually replacing the the Wedgetail.
Successful first flight of the world’s first Unmanned Airborne Early Warning solution
Saab and General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc. (GA-ASI) have successfully completed the first flight of the world’s first unmanned Airborne Early Warning (AEW) solution. This important achievement was made possible by integrating Saab’s LoyalEye radar sensor with GA-ASI’s unmanned MQ-9B...
I think there is still a global need for this sized platform.
Not sure what’s easiest; restart production ( no easy task ) or fund a new aircraft.
As for surplus platforms. one only hope
Cheers S
The way I see it is that the replacement of the E-7 may happen in phases. The MQ-28 might be one of those first phases. They will act as sensors, decoys, electronic warfare, relay drones and shooters. The next phase could be something like LoyalEye as uncrewed radar pickets. You might even eventually be able to throw in a constellation of satellites. The final phase might be the replacement of the E-7 itself. At that stage you might really just want a command aircraft since you already have radar picket drones and other dispersed sensors. You might be able to handle that role with a smallish aircraft based around a business jet or perhaps even a 6th gen fighter like GCAP.
I doubt the engines are made any more, they aren't used in any current in production aircraft as far as I can tell.
The manufacturing plant that made them was closed down after production finished.
The production jigs would have required a fair amount of space given the scale of the aircraft, so unless the USAF paid for them to be kept I doubt they are still around.
And I'm assuming replacements would be required for individual components.
Can be done, but wouldn't be cheap. Presumably quicker than designing, and certifying a whole new aircraft though.
"Doing a Super Hornet" on the C-17 probably would be a better move than either restarting production of the 'standard' C-17 or doing a fully clean sheet design.
Thanks
Yes,a big challenge for both a restart or clean sheet design / build.
That said logistics won’t go away.
With the huge increase in the unmanned realm creating havoc for aircraft, does this push tactical air lifters further back from the front line?
Thoughts
Regards S
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Err... The Super Hornet actually was a new design, albeit one drawn with experiences taken from the F-17 and Classic Hornet. In many respects, the Super Hornet of the late 90's was what the USN and USMC actually wanted in terms of performance from their A to D model Classic Hornets.
The SHornets themselves are larger aircraft with a higher MTOW than Classic Hornets.
How much lift is needed from military airlift designs and how much can be leveraged with civilian freighter designs?
For the majority of tasks, would an A330-MRTT be sufficient? How often is the short and rough field capacity utilised?
That's what I meant... use current layout and so on to inform the development of a new airframe. If the Super Hornet is any indication that'd be quicker and cheaper than an entirely clean sheet design.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
I would not call the programmes which lead to the Super Hornet quick, by any definition. Much of the groundwork for what became the Super Hornet started in the early 80's, as the USN/USMC desired a greater combat radius than the new into service F/A-18's could provide, so a larger airframe was considered. The first order might not have come until 1992 or entered service until 1999, but it had been getting worked on/tinkered with for years by then.
In the 80's and 90's the short/rough field landings were a pretty regular occurrence, partly because we had the Caribous, but also the C130H's were utilised on a fairly regular basis supporting 1 Bde.
Takao
The Bunker Group
Or - nothing.
The most recent air lift study found that the optimal mix is C-17 / C-130 / CH-47. Anything smaller than C-130 doesn't really value add from a warfighting point of view, they simply cost too much compared to the value that they provide. Note that the replacement for the C-27 is an additional 8x C-130 - so we will end up with a more capable fleet after AIR 7404 delivers and the C-27s are fully out of service.
For peacetime efforts like resupply runs to the region, or air drops for floods, it's cheaper just to hire something. I mean, ultimately you'd cut it to a different Department (DFAT and/or NEMA) and allow the ADF to focus on warfighting. Just like the NDS has been telling us what our priority should be.
Exactly. Not only does the USAF not have a surplus, but they don't have enough airframes and they are themselves facing a crunch with the looming end of life of the C-5 fleet.
How often? Quite - but not necessarily on rough field. Take most of the PNG fields - the rough capabilities of the C-130 and C-17 allow them to (a) get in and (b) still carry a useful load.
A civil based airlifter like the KC-30 is fine for small cargo and pax. It's actually better for pax than the other two. But - it struggles with over-size and/or over-mass, and it's slow to unload compared to a C-130 or C-17 as it doesn't have a ramp and easily accessible hold. the KC-30A is a vital part of the airlift mix, but it can only answer a small part. And they have another, more important job - refuelling the DCA or strike assets.
Yeah, in addition to @Todjaeger's comments about time, it wasn't really a direct growth path. If Congress wasn't looking to cancel projects, that platform would have been the F/A-21 or F/A-22. It's a new aircraft, not like an F-15EX where you can trace the majority of the design to the F-15A. Any C-17 replacement is going to look like a C-17 - big empty fuselage, high wing, four engines. Like the C-5, C-141, C-130 and so on. The air lift and airport requirements will drive the design.
Plus you can't take advantage of the 40 years of improvement in aerodynamics, engine or materiel design if you just start with a C-17 design.
On the subject of replacing the E-7 it is interesting to look at the direction the Swedes are taking with their LocalEye concept. Something like this could end up being part of the puzzle when it comes to eventually replacing the the Wedgetail.
Successful first flight of the world’s first Unmanned Airborne Early Warning solution
Saab and General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc. (GA-ASI) have successfully completed the first flight of the world’s first unmanned Airborne Early Warning (AEW) solution. This important achievement was made possible by integrating Saab’s LoyalEye radar sensor with GA-ASI’s unmanned MQ-9B...
Noting the majority of the expense of a E-7 is in the surfboard, the better question is not what replaces it, but what if we cannot afford to.
I'd rather see that question being tackled. If the money is there, the next gen radar and airframe can be mated reasonably easily. If the money isn't (looks at AUKUS), then the RAAF has to fundamentally change how it fights. That's where the value of debate is; not in platform A or B debates.
The Wedgetail concept is over 25 years old , certainly it has been of a size for upgrades to be cutting edge ,but when it was designed there were not potential adverarial opposition in the Pacific arena with credible threat ,it might be some combination of increased satellites and drones will be able to do some of the Wedgetail role , Somewhere people will be cruching options could be interesting
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Space based assets are looking awfully vulnerable due to emerging ant-satellite weapons. The most likely first use of a nuke is in space to generate a EMP albeit a risky option.