Royal Australian Air Force [RAAF] News, Discussions and Updates

[Abraham Gubler]

They had a recording playing on some of the displays which was interesting.

That would be something like this Nice location...

As to the mouse vs trackball you can always plug in a trackball if the mouse doesn't work out. But many platforms are moving to optical mice over trackballs because they are easier to use and can be controlled through most of the flight envelope of a 737.

 

[gf0012-aust]

But many platforms are moving to optical mice over trackballs because they are easier to use and can be controlled through most of the flight envelope of a 737.

Personal preference only, and I haven't had to use one in a plane, but I much prefer trackballs/plotter balls over optical mice. Much faster IMOM

 

[barra]

That would be something like this Nice location...

As to the mouse vs trackball you can always plug in a trackball if the mouse doesn't work out. But many platforms are moving to optical mice over trackballs because they are easier to use and can be controlled through most of the flight envelope of a 737.

Huuuuuh(sharp intake of breath).....you took a camera on board??? I briefly thought of smuggling mine on board but thought better of it. Guess that is an advantage of being in the press.
I would have thought that the tracball would be easier to use and control through the flight envelope as it is fixed to start with and not flopping all around the place on the end of a cable.
I was impressed with the layout and amount of space available on board. The crew rest and galley areas are quite large. I was a bit puzzled as to why they didn't use the entire internal space including under the radome, as in the E-3, until I saw that the radar actually protrudes a fair way into the cabin. I have been told that the aircraft has a maximum flight time of 15 hours as some of the gearboxes (?) require servicing/replenishment with fluid every 15hours. Places a major limit on the effectiveness of AAR and time on station. Have you also heard this or is it a furphy?

Nice pic btw, replay I saw was a recording from north western Australia, that looks like the Arabian Gulf.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Mice and trackballs only have a 5-10 year life anyway. Multitouch touch surfaces will be all the rage. But which is best depends on how the interface has been structured.

As for future aircraft... What a choice, C-17, new C-130 or A400's,KC-30's, C-27J or chinooks are all good options.

Bous should be replaced with Chinooks as they are the only possible replacement for that type of job and we need more anyway. Any operation in PNG or the islands are going to use Chinooks and the LHD's.

C-27J should also be purchased to play inbetween the Chooks and the C-130's. Money saved can be pushed into Chinooks and bigger aircraft. Maybe get 6 of these..

Another C-17. These things are awesome. Is there anyone not happy with the C-17?

 

[Aussie Digger]

Mice and trackballs only have a 5-10 year life anyway. Multitouch touch surfaces will be all the rage. But which is best depends on how the interface has been structured.

As for future aircraft... What a choice, C-17, new C-130 or A400's,KC-30's, C-27J or chinooks are all good options.

Bous should be replaced with Chinooks as they are the only possible replacement for that type of job and we need more anyway. Any operation in PNG or the islands are going to use Chinooks and the LHD's.

C-27J should also be purchased to play inbetween the Chooks and the C-130's. Money saved can be pushed into Chinooks and bigger aircraft. Maybe get 6 of these..

Another C-17. These things are awesome. Is there anyone not happy with the C-17?

RAAF have confirmed recently there is NO runway they use in PNG that is not C-130 capable nowadays...

 

[StingrayOZ]

I suppose that starts to push the C-27J out of contention.

But I still think any operations around, in PNG or in the pacific in general would still require a lot of chinook lift. We need more anyway. There are local run ways that won't allow C-130's to land and obviously operating off the LHD is out of the question.

We need airlift to and from the LHD and to and from local airports. C-17 and C-130 can land at most places, and can also drop, but we will need to land and pick up people/equipment and move them to airports or the LHD's. I don't have the numbers to say the NH-90 or the chook are the best for that job. I would assume you would need both.

I guess this one is really up in the air, it will be interesting to see how things fall out and what exactly we need.

 

[Aussie Digger]

I suppose that starts to push the C-27J out of contention.

Not necessarily, given that C-27J can carry roughly 70% of the load of a C-130, at a cheaper price and a lot of C-130 loads aren't using the full capacity of the Herc anyway...

I don't think it is out of the question at all...

What is more interesting to me, is how much do we really need C-130 if we do end up with C-17A and C-27J fleets?

C-17A does high end heavy lifting tasks.

C-27J does low end and the "trash" flights, at a relatively cheap price.

What exactly does C-130 give us, except an in-service and additional airframe type?

I agree though, that ADF needs more Chinook capacity.

 

[Goknub]

C17

I think replacing the C130 would cause as many headaches as it would solve.

Sure there are missions that only require a C27 but as well as lower cargo limits it lacks the range of the C130 so many missions would have to utilise the C17 when a cheaper C130 would have filled the role (timor runs for example).

As for the C17, we really need to be looking at 6 or more. These aircraft are likely to be around in 40 -50 years so we may as well get spares now.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Huuuuuh(sharp intake of breath).....you took a camera on board??? I briefly thought of smuggling mine on board but thought better of it. Guess that is an advantage of being in the press.

Nahh Its the new press picture released by Boeing.

I have been told that the aircraft has a maximum flight time of 15 hours as some of the gearboxes (?) require servicing/replenishment with fluid every 15hours. Places a major limit on the effectiveness of AAR and time on station. Have you also heard this or is it a furphy?

The maximum flight time of the P-8 is 18 hours due to similar limitations.

 

[Aussie Digger]

I think replacing the C130 would cause as many headaches as it would solve.

Sure there are missions that only require a C27 but as well as lower cargo limits it lacks the range of the C130 so many missions would have to utilise the C17 when a cheaper C130 would have filled the role (timor runs for example).

As for the C17, we really need to be looking at 6 or more. These aircraft are likely to be around in 40 -50 years so we may as well get spares now.

C-27 definitely has the range to do Timor runs, but it will come down to RAAF closely examining the cost benefit of utilising something like the C-27J instead of the C-13H/J's, plus C-17 for the bigger loads and longer ranges, with the added cost of the C-130J having to be replaced as well.

Thinking about these things, makes one realise why RAAF's airlift study has been a lengthy process...

 

[PeterM]

Not necessarily, given that C-27J can carry roughly 70% of the load of a C-130, at a cheaper price and a lot of C-130 loads aren't using the full capacity of the Herc anyway...

I don't think it is out of the question at all...

What is more interesting to me, is how much do we really need C-130 if we do end up with C-17A and C-27J fleets?

C-17A does high end heavy lifting tasks.

C-27J does low end and the "trash" flights, at a relatively cheap price.

What exactly does C-130 give us, except an in-service and additional airframe type?

I agree though, that ADF needs more Chinook capacity.

there is alot to like about a C-17A, C-27J and CH-47 mix, it makes alot of sense economically

what kinds of numbers are you thinking?

also what is the major differences between the CH-47D, MH-47E and CH-47F Chinook variants?

I believe the RAAF currently use the CH-47D with some of the electronics of the MH-47E, is this correct?

 

[StevoJH]

there is alot to like about a C-17A, C-27J and CH-47 mix, it makes alot of sense economically

what kinds of numbers are you thinking?

also what is the major differences between the CH-47D, MH-47E and CH-47F Chinook variants?

I believe the RAAF currently use the CH-47D with some of the electronics of the MH-47E, is this correct?

The MH-47E is the spec ops version of the Chinook. The CH-47F is an upgraded and reconditioned CH-47D.

 

[Aussie Digger]

there is alot to like about a C-17A, C-27J and CH-47 mix, it makes alot of sense economically

what kinds of numbers are you thinking?

also what is the major differences between the CH-47D, MH-47E and CH-47F Chinook variants?

I believe the RAAF currently use the CH-47D with some of the electronics of the MH-47E, is this correct?

C-17 - 6x would be nice... (Based on the statistic that 1x C-17 can lift equal to that of 4x C-130's. As we are getting KC-30A which will take some pax transfer and cargo lift off the tactical/strategic transport fleet, I don't think the loss of "concurrent operations" capability would be that significant).

C-27J - 16 - 24x would be lovely.

CH-47D/F - 12x - 16x would be very nice.

These are the sorts of numbers I would like to see. I have no idea whether any of this will happen though. I am happy to wait...

 

[Aussie Digger]

I believe the RAAF currently use the CH-47D with some of the electronics of the MH-47E, is this correct?

Army's CH-47D's have received upgraded engines, M-134 7.62mm "mini-guns", ballistic armour, new comms and battle management systems, new winch systems and new EW systems, to allow them to serve operationally.

Make of it, what you will, where the basis for these upgrades came from...

 

[PeterM]

Those sort of numbers would very effective, and plenty of airlift foe the size of the ADF.


I must admit I am not sold on the C-130

for large airlift requirements, the C-17 does is alot more effectively, as does the C-27 for smaller airlift needs and can also fill a similar role to the Cairibou.


Like the C-130, I am not sure the A-400M is ideally needed either

 

[PeterM]

Army's CH-47D's have received upgraded engines, M-134 7.62mm "mini-guns", ballistic armour, new comms and battle management systems, new winch systems and new EW systems, to allow them to serve operationally.

Make of it, what you will, where the basis for these upgrades came from...

Very nice, that is a considerable upgrade.

btw being able to serve operationally is always a good thing

 

[Aussie Digger]

Those sort of numbers would very effective, and plenty of airlift foe the size of the ADF.


I must admit I am not sold on the C-130

for large airlift requirements, the C-17 does is alot more effectively, as does the C-27 for smaller airlift needs and can also fill a similar role to the Cairibou.


Like the C-130, I am not sure the A-400M is ideally needed either

If the A400m even survives. Of course it all comes down to $$$.

There is nothing wrong with the C-130J-30 and it's in-service and paid for. It is a fine airlifter, it just seems a tad superfluous when C-17 is available and the H model Hercs HAVE to be replaced. The other option, provided it's economically viable, would be to simply buy more Hercs and forget about small airlift and the economies potentially available therein.

A fleet of 16-18 Hercs and 4-5x C-17's would provide outstanding airlift and while we might give up the mythical "short land capability of the Bous (which doesn't exist when a decent load needs to be carried) how much would this affect US anyway? No-one else much requires such a capability. What makes us so unique?

Of course, cost per flight hour, per kilo of cargo etc needs to be factored in and the cost of replacing the C-130J capability with C-17's and C-27J's is not going to be insignificant. L-M is unlikely to want to buy the C-130J-30's off us, either, given they won't be selling us a replacement plane.

I've seen A400m quoted many times for Australia, but I fail to see the requirements for it, presuming of course that program doesn't fall over entirely. It can't lift what the C-17 can and it costs much more and is FAR more risky than either C-130 or C-27J/C-295.

We could order half a dozen new C-17's and each of them would have reached FOC before the first A400m could be delivered and both C-130J and C-27 are cheaper. Why does it allegedly suit us then?

 

[barra]

Army's CH-47D's have received upgraded engines, M-134 7.62mm "mini-guns", ballistic armour, new comms and battle management systems, new winch systems and new EW systems, to allow them to serve operationally.

Make of it, what you will, where the basis for these upgrades came from...

Very subtle AD.

Peter, the Army stole the RAAFs choppers in the early nineties even though studies at the time showed that the status quo was the better option. At the time most RAAFies involved with choppers stayed in blue rather than go over to the Army(and who could blame them), current CDF ACM Houston is a good example. The transfer is still a touchy point and continues to fuel inter service rivalry. In fact Navy better watch their backs, their MRH-90's are already painted green. :shudder

 

[Sea Toby]

A white paper should define Australia's airlift requirements. I prefer a balanced fleet of aircraft, say two more C-17s, 6 more C-130Js or 130Js, with the rest of the requirement filled with C-27Js, possibly with an additional 4-6 Chinooks.

 

[Goknub]

white paper

The only practical reason I could see the ADF needing the C27 would be lower operational costs.

Given the option I'd prefer a larger Chinook fleet to another RAAF transport. Atm, the army seems limited to 2 x Ch47 for 4 months/year which is crap. A worth while sustainable number would require 18 - 24 airframes (slighty less if multiple crews are used).

Given our sizable defence budget the extra capacity of the C130 should justify higher running costs.