You can probably blame me. I don't think anyone is getting in a flat spin about RAAF CSAR. AFAIK neither the the RAAF nor the ADF as a whole has shown no interest in it. However, I think they should.
My argument is that if there is a chance of Australia deploying elements of the air combat force to Afghanistan in the next few years it ought to form a CSAR helo squadron so that a detachment can support the fighters. I am also beginning to agree with Barra that if this happens it would be logical to also take over the peacetime SAR now provided by civilian contract. The other thing that I commented about was my belief that if CSAR is provided within the ADF order of battle it ought to be under the control of the RAAF rather than the army.
Tas
good to see, I also noticed the snake eater version of the cv-22 is coming online nicely. now there is a platform that could do it all with regard to aerial insertion, paratroop drops, helo insertionm extraction, etc. very versatile little platform to have IMHO. If the RAAF or Army picked a few up you could consider them a bit of a fire sale considering how much has been spent to get the program going....on another note...just found out that 3RAR will be maintaining a Company group Parachute capability,in the same way that 6RAR maintained D-Coy as a para group. This really is forward thinking by the ADF, allowing for rapid expansion and keeping a traditional Para capability close to hand. Bear in mind that Comando /SF para roles are significantly different to airbourne infantry. It would be a waste of assests to make the SAS or 4RAR do a traditional infantry role after deployment by parachute.
Last edited:
good to see, I also noticed the snake eater version of the cv-22 is coming online nicely. now there is a platform that could do it all with regard to aerial insertion, paratroop drops, helo insertionm extraction, etc. very versatile little platform to have IMHO. If the RAAF or Army picked a few up you could consider them a bit of a fire sale considering how much has been spent to get the program going.
I can't see the ADF springing for another type of aircraft, especially if more Chinooks are purchased and the Caribous replaced with C-27's. Mind you, rumours abound regarding the type of craft being considered for the 'Bou replacement.
Suggestions I've seen touted
1) C-27 (main contender from my reading, yanks have selected it as their JCA, [some commonality with C-130?] )
2) More Chooks (a possibility I guess, given that the ADF already operate them, are supposed to be looking at buying more anyway - logistically makes some sense)
3) C-295 (long shot IMHO)
4) CV-22 ??
How many would the ADF have to acquire to get a useful capability?
The reason I ask is that if the C-27's are chosen, then there'd only be very limited funds for a CV-22 buy, and would it then be worth buying only a handful given the logistics and costs involved in supporting/crewing them?
rb
Nobody is flat spinning here, just a frank and open discussion on what we would like to see.
(a nice thought but outside our budget)
Extra Chinooks for Army and C-27's to replace the 'bous will be the outcome for the ADF's Tac Transport requirements, I think, but Boeing is pushing the CV-22 so anything is possible.(they must have some incriminating photo's of Nelson or something!! )
Hooroo
I am still not sold on these Cv-22's. Have all of the bugs been ironed out? They have a bad reputation for being unreliable(unsafe?) and expensive. I would like to know the amount of maintenance hours needed per hour of flight time as opposed to the same for a chook. I think the CV-22 has about as much chance of being operated by the ADF as the RAAF has of getting CSAR choppers.
(a nice thought but outside our budget)Extra Chinooks for Army and C-27's to replace the 'bous will be the outcome for the ADF's Tac Transport requirements, I think, but Boeing is pushing the CV-22 so anything is possible.(they must have some incriminating photo's of Nelson or something!!
) Hooroo
The RAAF do in fact have CSAR Helos. Not sure of Squadron or type but they managed to rescue some bloke off the east coast few weeks ago...CV22 here we come!I am still not sold on these Cv-22's. Have all of the bugs been ironed out? They have a bad reputation for being unreliable(unsafe?) and expensive. I would like to know the amount of maintenance hours needed per hour of flight time as opposed to the same for a chook. I think the CV-22 has about as much chance of being operated by the ADF as the RAAF has of getting CSAR choppers.
A private contractor operates SAR helos on the airforce's behalf. The RAAF doesn't have any combat SAR helos. A CSAR helo is equipped to operate over enemy territory to rescue aircrew who come down in occupied territory.
Tas
Sorry but why should be ADF replace the Bou with Osprey instead of Spartan
Just 2 Numbers to show that we are talking about 2 Different Classes.
10000 lbs Cargo vs. 25000 in the Spartan
24 Troops vs. 60 in the Spartan.
Even if the ADF really gets an SpecOps Helo Squadron the logical step would be MRH 90 and Chinooks instead of just Ospreys
Just 2 Numbers to show that we are talking about 2 Different Classes.
10000 lbs Cargo vs. 25000 in the Spartan
24 Troops vs. 60 in the Spartan.
Even if the ADF really gets an SpecOps Helo Squadron the logical step would be MRH 90 and Chinooks instead of just Ospreys
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
In terms of cargo capacity and troop transport performance, the CV-22 is closer to that of the DHC-4 than the C-27 is. The Caribou has 4 tons cargo cap or 22 litter or 32 standing troops. The Spartan is a substantially larger aircraft than either the Caribou or Osprey.
Incidentally, I suggest further general discussion of ADF aircraft/transport replacement occur in the RAAF thread since that is the service likely to operate the Caribou replacement.
-Cheers
I found this on an Orbat site.
Concerning the Tasks of Air Water and Mobility I can imagine what they have to do. But what about the Signals Troop? I mean for sure communication but as they also seem to have Patrol Duty what makes those Men different from the Other.
Other SOF who a similiar patterned have instead of Signals Troop a Mountain Troop. So Im a bit confused
Tank Giveaway!
Interesting comment about them being almost deployed to ET in 1999.
Hooroo
Here you go boys, just what you need to do the shopping in. Wouldn't have to worry about some pr@$k scratching your duco. Could be hard to find a parking spot big enough though.
Interesting comment about them being almost deployed to ET in 1999.
Hooroo
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
An LUH helicopter is a certainty under AIR-9000. Apparently even Army and Navy have agreed to the same features on the helo. Something almost unheard of...
As to more Tigers and MRH-90's? We'll see. Personally I think more Tigers are more likely than more MRH-90's, however either would be a long way off. Army Aviation has a big job to do to introduce and start providing capability from the purchases that already have been made, before we can start seriously considering buying more.
What's the point of having even 50x Tigers, if they're sitting in a warehouse somewhere being maintained at tax payer expense, but unable to fly due to a lack of pilots and battle captains?
Army's only got 7x Tigers at present and it can't even fly them as much as it wants to yet...
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Army is currently intending to operate 9x Tiger ARH per Squadron with 4x helo's for training.
Another Squadron of 9 would truly boost the supportability of these helo's on operations, however again, I think it's too earlier to worry about that.
The LUH is likely to acquire up to 28x for Army and around12x for Navy. Something like the A109E Power, just like Navy is operating now, would be my guess...
battlensign
New Member
An LUH helicopter is a certainty under AIR-9000. Apparently even Army and Navy have agreed to the same features on the helo. Something almost unheard of...
As to more Tigers and MRH-90's? We'll see. Personally I think more Tigers are more likely than more MRH-90's, however either would be a long way off. Army Aviation has a big job to do to introduce and start providing capability from the purchases that already have been made, before we can start seriously considering buying more.
What's the point of having even 50x Tigers, if they're sitting in a warehouse somewhere being maintained at tax payer expense, but unable to fly due to a lack of pilots and battle captains?
Army's only got 7x Tigers at present and it can't even fly them as much as it wants to yet...
Its called Iran......
: On a more serious note....
Wouldn't some more Tigers assist us to take over the Dutch Role in Afghanistan? I would be supprised if they could not find things to do with them.......(surely we could find 14 aircrew for them?)
Last edited by a moderator:
Well that would be the deal. Withe 28 LUH there a 3 Questions.
Will there be an extra Regt for them?
And willt they be armed. (Rocket Pods,Hellfires and 12,7mm?)
As the 109 Design is quite old. Would it be also possible to get AW139 or 149 or are they to big to be LUH?
Last edited:
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Where are we going to get more from?Its called Iran......
On a more serious note....
Wouldn't some more Tigers assist us to take over the Dutch Role in Afghanistan? I would be supprised if they could not find things to do with them.......(surely we could find 14 aircrew for them?)
AS I said, we've got 7 at present, with 2 more to be delivered shortly and the rest in various stages of constructuion.
We could have 1000 Tigers here in Australia. We still couldn't deploy any because we don't have the crews. Simple as that. It will be 2009/10 before they reach IOC as I understand.
They simply won't be going ANYWHERE until they reach initial operational capability...
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Not likely. They will probably be operated by 1 Aviation Regt, who operate the Iroquois and Kiowa helicopters they are replacing.
Perhaps with a flex mounted door gun if there was some chance of them being deployed somewhere. This would most likely be a MAG-58 7.62mm GPMG. Any sort of more advanced weaponry is quite unlikely. It is a training helicopter predominantly that may undertake some minor utility tasks. Not a combat helicopter. That's why we bought the Tigers...
I have no idea, however I expect not. The helo is replacing the Squirrel, Kiowa and to a degree, the Iroquois. It will be something updated, but similarly sized and powered to these and most of all, CHEAP...
capability
To explain: While it is particularly useful in general terms The CV-22 is in its element in high altitude environments where we (the USA) and presumably Australia will be fighting for many, many years to come.
So rather than laying down the usual mizare(?), in its proper context (what it can do and where it can go and in what environment will the ADF be fighting) , the only competive platform to the CV-22 is the CH47F.
But whereas the CH47F is slow, the CV-22 is fast.
It is actually a bit of a no brainer and aside from that, Australia doesn't need the ridiculous requirement by the USMC to restrict rotor size so that it can fit 'x' V-22s on 'y' deck. It could be optimized with the original rotors giving it better high and hot characteristics then the production version and that would really take it head and shoulders above the CH47F, because now you are toying with it being able to lift comparative combat loads.
re: the logistic question, if we are fighting a fireman response conflict as we are in Afghanistan, you need less CV-22's than you would CH47Fs to deliver the same force compnents as you can get to the battle faster. The premise of winning a fire fight in the mountains is who can bring fire power to bear faster? If you have the CV-22 that will be you, If you have the same number of CH47F's we would like to hope it would be you, but there is an element of doubt.
So getting back to logo, it would be cheaper to run less platforms then it would be to run more. Its just a case of figuring out how many platforms you need to meet operational capability that you guys are happy with. The other element is that the CV-22 gives a fire base more reach for the same number of men. Its a force multiplier over and above a chinook. Add that all up and then factor in the price tag and you come out reasonably even. Then it comes back to the original point. The question to buy is a question of desired capability.
cheers
w
Well, that is just it. The fundamental question is do you need the capability? If its no, then you buy CH-47s, If its yes, then you buy CV-22s, quite simple.Nobody is flat spinning here, just a frank and open discussion on what we would like to see.
I am still not sold on these Cv-22's. Have all of the bugs been ironed out? They have a bad reputation for being unreliable(unsafe?) and expensive. I would like to know the amount of maintenance hours needed per hour of flight time as opposed to the same for a chook. I think the CV-22 has about as much chance of being operated by the ADF as the RAAF has of getting CSAR choppers.
Extra Chinooks for Army and C-27's to replace the 'bous will be the outcome for the ADF's Tac Transport requirements, I think, but Boeing is pushing the CV-22 so anything is possible.(they must have some incriminating photo's of Nelson or something!!
Hooroo
To explain: While it is particularly useful in general terms The CV-22 is in its element in high altitude environments where we (the USA) and presumably Australia will be fighting for many, many years to come.
So rather than laying down the usual mizare(?), in its proper context (what it can do and where it can go and in what environment will the ADF be fighting) , the only competive platform to the CV-22 is the CH47F.
But whereas the CH47F is slow, the CV-22 is fast.
It is actually a bit of a no brainer and aside from that, Australia doesn't need the ridiculous requirement by the USMC to restrict rotor size so that it can fit 'x' V-22s on 'y' deck. It could be optimized with the original rotors giving it better high and hot characteristics then the production version and that would really take it head and shoulders above the CH47F, because now you are toying with it being able to lift comparative combat loads.
re: the logistic question, if we are fighting a fireman response conflict as we are in Afghanistan, you need less CV-22's than you would CH47Fs to deliver the same force compnents as you can get to the battle faster. The premise of winning a fire fight in the mountains is who can bring fire power to bear faster? If you have the CV-22 that will be you, If you have the same number of CH47F's we would like to hope it would be you, but there is an element of doubt.
So getting back to logo, it would be cheaper to run less platforms then it would be to run more. Its just a case of figuring out how many platforms you need to meet operational capability that you guys are happy with. The other element is that the CV-22 gives a fire base more reach for the same number of men. Its a force multiplier over and above a chinook. Add that all up and then factor in the price tag and you come out reasonably even. Then it comes back to the original point. The question to buy is a question of desired capability.
cheers
w