Future of the Australian Defence Force

[Navor86]

On ADF tactical transport the Army already plans to grow its CH-47 fleet to 12 CH-47Fs by mid next decade (projects in the DCP) just to support increased demand for helicopter support. Navy plans on replacing all MRH90/Seahawk/Sesprite helicopters (~24-32) with a reconfigurable helo so all will be capable of naval support (ie transport) missions.

As to the 38 SQN role a full unit of ISR/Tactical Super King Airs will be very useful and I expect we will see them in the long term. Operationally they are ideal for non-direct action transport for SOF and the ISR role (especially COMINT) is very important until the ADF ever acquires some kind of MALE tactical UAV.

With the C-17s the C-130 can be cascaded into covering most of tactical transport mission. The only really unique tactical role of the Caribou and its replacement was deploying Army patrols across the north of Australia. Since this is mostly redundant after Defence abandoned the crazy Defence of Australia strategy the need for a C-27J (compared to a C-130) diminishes. As a medium sized air force we can’t necessarily have platforms in every size class.

The other requirement is for SOF strategic infil/exfil for direct action missions far from home and nearby support. We have an infil capability via the C-130H, parachuting and the airdrop RHIB but no exfil. This is ideal territory for the CV-22B. Such a long range, high speed VTOL capability would also provide C-SAR and other high end tactical transport capabilities.

So an ideal RAAF transport fleet of:

8 A330 MRTT (33 Sqn – strategic transport and tanking)
8 C-17A (36 Sqn – strategic and tactical transport)
16 C-130J (35, 37 Sqns - tactical transport)
8 Super King Air (32 Sqn – liaison transport and training support)
8 Super King Air (38 Sqn – tactical transport and surveillance primarily in support of SOCOMD)
8 CV-22B (20 Sqn – strategic transport and C-SAR primarily in support of SOCOMD)

Well I aggree on most aspects but I would go for
6 C-17
18 C-130
8 C-27
and none King Air

 

[barra]

On ADF tactical transport the Army already plans to grow its CH-47 fleet to 12 CH-47Fs by mid next decade (projects in the DCP) just to support increased demand for helicopter support. Navy plans on replacing all MRH90/Seahawk/Sesprite helicopters (~24-32) with a reconfigurable helo so all will be capable of naval support (ie transport) missions.

As to the 38 SQN role a full unit of ISR/Tactical Super King Airs will be very useful and I expect we will see them in the long term. Operationally they are ideal for non-direct action transport for SOF and the ISR role (especially COMINT) is very important until the ADF ever acquires some kind of MALE tactical UAV.

With the C-17s the C-130 can be cascaded into covering most of tactical transport mission. The only really unique tactical role of the Caribou and its replacement was deploying Army patrols across the north of Australia. Since this is mostly redundant after Defence abandoned the crazy Defence of Australia strategy the need for a C-27J (compared to a C-130) diminishes. As a medium sized air force we can’t necessarily have platforms in every size class.

The other requirement is for SOF strategic infil/exfil for direct action missions far from home and nearby support. We have an infil capability via the C-130H, parachuting and the airdrop RHIB but no exfil. This is ideal territory for the CV-22B. Such a long range, high speed VTOL capability would also provide C-SAR and other high end tactical transport capabilities.

So an ideal RAAF transport fleet of:

8 A330 MRTT (33 Sqn – strategic transport and tanking)
8 C-17A (36 Sqn – strategic and tactical transport)
16 C-130J (35, 37 Sqns - tactical transport)
8 Super King Air (32 Sqn – liaison transport and training support)
8 Super King Air (38 Sqn – tactical transport and surveillance primarily in support of SOCOMD)
8 CV-22B (20 Sqn – strategic transport and C-SAR primarily in support of SOCOMD)

I disagree about the C-27J. As a tactical transport the King Air is a poor option compared to the C-27J. The RAAF will be well served for ISR assets with AP-3C, Wedgetail, Global Hawk (if and when procured) and P-8 in the future. For a small force the ADF gets more out of C-27s then King Airs, surely its performance and capacity makes it a superior option.

Also to your ideal transport fleet I would like to see KC-130Js (?) ordered, perhaps 4-6 units. Combined with an AAR capability for Armys chooks, would like to see the original and extra chooks upgraded to a standard similar to the USAF SPECOPs chooks, this would give SASR a deep insertion capability and also cover C-SAR. Like the idea of extra KC-30s, especially if the pollies are going to hijack them and use them as VIP transports. I would like to see extra C-17s ordered but I can't see an extra 4 units, maybe 2 extra would be within our reach.

So I have;
8 - KC-30
6 - C-17
18 - KC/C-130J
14 - C-27J
12 - CH-47
and the King Airs doing Nav training and liaison at 32SQN

 

[barra]

Na mate my fault for not reading your post correctly. BTW I recon that your suggestion of an addtional 6 chooks and a SQD of C-27's is just what the ADF needs for its tactical airlift requirements with one Caveat, 6 NH-90's for the navys heavy lift dose not seem enough to me.This is becauce the NH-90's will just like the Seaking is deployed normally as a two bird flight and that means we would be at best able to deploy 1 and 1/2 flights due to training and maintenance requirements. I would like at least two more NH-90 airframes for the navy.

Totally agree regarding the NH-90s. Navy needs to have the airframes permanently based on the LHDs and flown by Navy crews. Flying from a ship is a different skill to tactical flying through the bush. Skills deteriorate quickly when not practised, using Army crews to fly from LHDs may seem like a good idea but you can't beat the skills of the guys/girls who do it day in day out. Not having a go at Army aviation (you can only do what you are told) but I doubt the Blackhawk crash off Fiji would have happened with experienced Naval aviators at the controls.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I disagree about the C-27J. As a tactical transport the King Air is a poor option compared to the C-27J.

The King Air does not replace the C-27J. The King Air and the C-130 replace the C-27J. All missions that require rough field capability and tactical insertions, etc are flown by C-130s. The King Airs fly are the less glamorous and lighter load stuff. The sort of missions that need to be flown but will have the budget writers blanch at if someone suggests using a C-27J for it. Like flying 8 SOF from A to B or carrying a COMINT array with 2-3 operators for a couple of hours above location X.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Totally agree regarding the NH-90s. Navy needs to have the airframes permanently based on the LHDs and flown by Navy crews.

So you double the size of Naval Aviation, good luck! Under the new HATS Army Aviation crews will be trained for naval landings from the start of their careers. With the LHDs they will also maintain helos on board several months per year. The level of maritime landing training and experience is going to skyrocket. Also landing a helo on a 27,000 tonne ship with an axial flight deck is much, much easier than on a 5,000 tonne ship with an aft flight deck.

As to the Black Hawk crash this had a lot more to do with the flight profile simulating a touch and go type drop off of SOF. The only way a Naval Aviator would have made it safer was to refuse to fly it.

 

[barra]

So you double the size of Naval Aviation, good luck! Under the new HATS Army Aviation crews will be trained for naval landings from the start of their careers. With the LHDs they will also maintain helos on board several months per year. The level of maritime landing training and experience is going to skyrocket. Also landing a helo on a 27,000 tonne ship with an axial flight deck is much, much easier than on a 5,000 tonne ship with an aft flight deck.

As to the Black Hawk crash this had a lot more to do with the flight profile simulating a touch and go type drop off of SOF. The only way a Naval Aviator would have made it safer was to refuse to fly it.

All good points but would still like to see naval aviators flying off naval ships. Maybe one squadron would be sufficient for the two LHDs? Your last point is spot on and that is my point, an experienced naval aviator doing this stuff day in day out is much more preferable than a pilot that flies from ships a handfull of times per year. Once again we see Defences attitude of asking people to do more with less, I am sorry but I don't like it.

 

[barra]

I have heard from multiple sources that the Bou has trouble obtaining its fuel both in FNQ and its pacific area of operations. One of which was the CAF interview that I first heard that the Bou was getting paid off early. Im no birdy but it probably a specific fuel for radial engines.

Have heard back from a mate at Townsvegas and you are right, AVGAS supply is a logistical nightmare when deployed in places like Timor, Solomons and even anywhere west of Mt Isa according to him!! AVTUR on the other hand is readily available, so if we had re-engined them with turboprops all those years ago it wouldn't have been a problem. The main reason they have been retired was of course tired airframes, low serviceability and the amount of manhours required just to get a few on line. Difficulty supplying AVGAS when deployed would have been another nail in the coffin.

Still everyone I have spoken to who is connected to them in some way just loves em. Sad to see the old girls go, Avalon should be a chance for them to go out in some style. Still maintain that King Airs are a poor replacement, even temporarily. The role of fixed wing tactical battlefield transport is still an Army requirement. Fixed wing transporters can fly higher, faster, further and with a greater payload than any helicopter. Losing this capability will be a mistake.