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

[Marc 1]

This was posted back here:
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/a...news-discussions-updates-6007-116/#post172191

Corrected link to ADM archive:
ADM: How many Buffalos make a Caribou?

I think it's an interesting idea. If they really are that much cheaper than a more modern design, it may be worth thinking about. (Of course, you'd need to ensure you compare running costs, service life, etc)

Australia already has quite a few large cargo aircraft with a range of capabilities, but they are all expensive (and highly important) assets.

Getting a low-end option would give a lot more flexibility. It may sound harsh, but the Air Force really could stand to own more planes that it can afford to lose.

Still, I'm not 100% convinced these aircraft can be delivered on time and on budget- until they start rolling off the production line, it's a risky option.

Two things occur to me that need to be answered here.

The first is the question of do we still have a need that only a Caribou can fullfil? The one unique characteristic the Caribou has is its strong STOL credentials. These may have been quite important to the military when they were purchased in the 60's (almost an operational need at the time), as the choppers available to the RAAF were no-where near as capable (Chinooks didn't arrve till 1974) and apart from Vietnam there were a large number of airfields in PNG that only a Caribou could land a decent load into.

So that's the positive side of the argument. The bad points include:

* Limited payload - now around 4 tonnes into a good strip, - apparently 30% higher if we look at re-engined/rebuilt or new turboprop Caribous - so call it 5.2 tonnes. If doing a STOL landing these figures are seriously reduced (I don't know the exact payloads but at least 30% smaller). A Chinook CH47F can drop over 10 tonnes of stores vertically into a clearing albeit at a much shorter range. A C27 whilst not as capable in a STOL environment has a payload of 11.5 tonnes, less when operating into an unpaved strip, but still higher than the Caribou could dream of.

* Speed. The very factors that make the Caribou such a brilliant STOL performer severly hamper it's airspeed and range compared to other possible replacements. Cruising speeds/ranges:

Caribou turbo prop: 322kph (est-10% higher than 293 speed of piston variant) range - unsure but said to be 60% better payload/range than piston.

CH-47F: 220kph 741km (load not stated)

C27J: 583kph 1852km at full load 11,500kg.

You are probably thinking speed doesn't matter - unfortunately it does, higher speeds = higher sortie rates = more work done.

The final point is that the only company capable of building Caribous is Viking Aircraft - a maintainer of out of production DeHavilland aircraft. They have not as yet built a Caribou (to my knowledge) they just have all the plans/jigs etc. They have started building series 400 Twin Otters, so they obviously are capable, but you'd have to ask at what rate would they be able to produce the aircraft. If we were to re-enging the existing aircraft - I'm fairly certain they do have fatigue issues (40 plus years old) and they would require an expensive and time consuming rebuild process.

In short, the role they were bought for can now be done by choppers, perhaps a smarter choice would be an aircraft that is in production that is far more capable (c-27J). Then you could fly supplies to a longer strip in the C27's and distribute from there by Chinook.

Just had another look at this site: http://www.casr.ca/doc-news-viking-buffalo-specs.htm I think they may be being a tad optimistic with their estimated speed. I would imagine the Buff would be a much draggier airframe with far less powerful engines to be claiming a speed only 15 knots slower than a C-27J may be stretching it a bit. Maybe someone can explain how adding 60 odd horsepower can increase your speed by 65 knots - does it have something to do with the derated powerplants able to produce maximum rated power over a wider range of conditions?

 

[PeterM]

Personally I think the C-27J is a much better option for the RAAF than the Buffalo

It is a much more capable aircraft (over twice the payload), plus can allow significant economies of scale by tacking into the US supply train (they have an initial contract is for 78 C-27J plus the C-130J fleet).

The common propulsion systems and avionics between the C-130J and C-27J which will reduce the support, logistical and training overhead of operating a different airframe, making it very cost effective for the RAAF to operate.

from http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/spartan/

the C-27J Spartan tactical transport aircraft incorporates the same propulsion system and advanced avionics as the C-130J Hercules Transporter

The C-27J has some STOL capability but the substantial MRH-90s and CH-47F fleets provide considerable tactical lift for the traditional STOL missions of the Caribou.

 

[Marc 1]

Can anyone tell me how the original Nomad aircraft were used? Were they in the inventory of the Army or the RAAF?
Reason for the inquiry is that Gippsland Air have obtained the production rights to the Nomad, and apparently are going to build an improved version the Nomad II, with different engines, avionics, etc. (It would need to be improved from what I remember.) If it was successful it may be suitable for the Army air wing. Comments?

Light utility/liason roles. When Gippsland say new engines they are talking uprated versions of the original Alison 250's - it would be too expensive aparently to replace the engines with say PT6's. Avionics would of course be updated to something more modern.

The liason role is now filled by King Airs, nearly twice the speed, three times the range.

 

[StingrayOZ]

In short, the role they were bought for can now be done by choppers, perhaps a smarter choice would be an aircraft that is in production that is far more capable (c-27J). Then you could fly supplies to a longer strip in the C27's and distribute from there by Chinook.

The C27J is able to fly from bases in Australia to else where in the region (not ideal but certainly do able). The Bou would have been a painfully long journey taking twice as long with half the payload (a waste of time). Particularly useful in say a regional natural disaster where air has to go everywhere, continously or where erratic supply lines are needed.

C27J with is faster speed, is a more survivable aircraft. A Bou dragging across contested boarders is a sitting duck with such a low Vmax and I would imagine low manouverability. The C27J will be used by countries who will develop counter measures, system upgrades, power upgrades while a Buff/new bou won't.

In terms of maintence the C27J is a two for one. Building off existing Herc knowledge but also resulting in more people able to work on both types of aircraft in many areas. Maintence costs can therefore be lowered for both types, yet get more for the smaller $'s.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Can anyone tell me how the original Nomad aircraft were used? Were they in the inventory of the Army or the RAAF?

The Army used to operate quite a few fixed wing aircraft including around 20 each of Nomads and Turbo Porters. These aircraft would not operate from airfields but rough field strips wherever there was flat ground using their STOL capability.

The main role of these aircraft was battlefield support which basically meant mobility for high priority cargo, surveillance and target acquisition. High priority cargo usually meant VIPs, commanders, wounded, emergency supply of ammunition/spare parts/water and long range reconnaissance patrols (parachute deployed). Surveillance and target acquisition was a mix of carrying Artillery forward observers and Signals electronic warfare (communications intelligence). They could also fly support for Intelligence psychological operations (delivering leaflets and audio broadcasts).

Most of these roles are now carried out by helicopters and UAVs. The King Airs the army operated were used for liaison missions and surveillance (mostly EW). They will keep up the mission as part of the RAAF. The RAAF had a few Nomads for trials support at ARDU.

 

[old faithful]

The C27J is able to fly from bases in Australia to else where in the region (not ideal but certainly do able). The Bou would have been a painfully long journey taking twice as long with half the payload (a waste of time). Particularly useful in say a regional natural disaster where air has to go everywhere, continously or where erratic supply lines are needed.

C27J with is faster speed, is a more survivable aircraft. A Bou dragging across contested boarders is a sitting duck with such a low Vmax and I would imagine low manouverability. The C27J will be used by countries who will develop counter measures, system upgrades, power upgrades while a Buff/new bou won't.

In terms of maintence the C27J is a two for one. Building off existing Herc knowledge but also resulting in more people able to work on both types of aircraft in many areas. Maintence costs can therefore be lowered for both types, yet get more for the smaller $'s.

Yes the bous were very slow, but managed to survive vietnam, and the boarder areas were very heavily contested there mate! the bou,s were very easy and cheap to maintain in conparison to the chooks. The chooks are very expensive to operate, more than a C130! I still think the stol capability, and the rough field performance is esential for our region, i would( personally ) love to see an aircraft with the C& CC08 or what ever its offically called now in the RAAF,s inventory.
I can remember doing continuation jumps at salt ash, one of the bous landed on the rough ground,(very sandy and soft,great DZ!) and got bogged. A platoon of us pushed it out of the bogg, and continued jumping for the day. A very handy aircraft indeed.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Yes the bous were very slow, but managed to survive vietnam, and the boarder areas were very heavily contested there mate!

There were eight USAF Caribous shot down in Vietnam ('66-71), all from small arms fires. They didn't face a VSHORADS threat while being flown by Americans (I don't have data for VNAF losses).

Speed isn't so bad as not being able to rapidly climb above the trashfire threshold (~10-15,000 feet) so locals with itchy fingers and the odd SA-7 can't shoot them down. Also the Caribou lacks the payload to be loaded down with floor armour and EWSP for protection against small arms and missiles.

The days of the Caribou are over. Much better to be replaced by C-27J in a tactical transport role and King Air in a tactical support role. In non tactical roles solutions like the leased C212s and aircraft like the Nomad are a cheaper solution.

 

[old faithful]

yeah I know the days of the bou are over....i would just like to see an aircraft with the STOL and rough field capability of the Bou in RAAF colors. i dont think the C27 has the any where near those capabilities, Im not suggesting that its not a good aircraft, just that it dosnt have the ability to deploy to a very primative airfield (or a big paddock with a few drums of fuel cached) like the bou has. Its a neice capability, but one we have, and shouldnt lose IMO.
Abe,about 70 C130,s were lost in Vietnam. So i cant except loss stats as an argument why we cant or shouldnt find an aircraft with the capabilities of the bou.
the point Im getting at, is a platoon sized group can fly to a clearing at grid 1234 5678, 6-700km away, land refuel the aircraft at a cache either at the LD or at an alternate LD. This has happend on exercizes before, and is a viable,cheap way of transport. and a fast way to set up a FSB or FOA.

 

[old faithful]

Can the C212 do the job of the old bou,s? If it can, why dont we get some, and leave tactical transport to the C130,s? im aware that the RAAF use some leased C212,s , but not aware of the short feild performance.

 

[the road runner]

Can the C212 do the job of the old bou,s? If it can, why dont we get some, and leave tactical transport to the C130,s? im aware that the RAAF use some leased C212,s , but not aware of the short feild performance.

I think you are on to something Old faithful.

C-212-400 Transporter and Surveillance Aircraft - Air Force Technology

I know nothing of the Aircraft but am reading up on it.

The C-212-400 can carry 25 Paratroopers with inward facing seets.

Has a range of 1000nm.

Can carry from 1 to 3 tonne loads.

Can carry 250 Kg on each of its 2 weapons staytions.

The aircraft can accommodate two 88in×54in pallets.

The wiki links states that a number of C-212 aircraft used by civillian and military Market.

CASA C-212 Aviocar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The thing that stood out in the wiki article is that the,"C-212 has been involved in 71 hull loss incedents,with a total of 499 casualties.The aircraft is not considered accident prone as the aircraft is used in high-risk operations at low altitudes."

Australia uses 3 C-212 to fly soldiers/supplies/people to the Artcict.(something i did not know we do was send troops to the Arctic?)

I know little of this plane and hope some senior members with Knowladge on this Aircraft will give us, members some understanding of this.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

There are a few C-212s in Australian government service but none are used by the military. All are owned and operated by commercial entities with service contracts with the Government.

Army has a contractor provide a few C-212s at Nowra for parachute training and the Australian Antarctic Division has a couple for flying people around the Antarctic in summer (not to and from the Antarctic).

FAQs on C-212 aircraft - Australian Antarctic Division

Like the Caribou the C-212 would not be a combat survivable plane in theatres like Iraq and Afghanistan. The Caribou had three main roles: tactical transport, ADF liasion and other duties and civil support in emergencies. The first role is best served by a C-27J paltform, the second by King Airs and leased assets (like the C-212) and the last is mostly redundant. In the 1960s and 70s when the Caribou established its niche as a civil support aircraft there was very little aircraft and airfield infrastructure in PNG and Australia. This has now changed. There are more heavy lift helicopters and fuel dumps in PNG than all of Australia (commercial operations to support mining). These other Government and commercial aircraft throughout Australia and PNG can provide more than enough emergency support. This role has passed away.

 

[hairyman]

Extra lift capability will be provided by the five KC-30A multirole tanker-transport aircraft. "
As it is planned that the KC-30A are going to be used as transport as well as tankers, 5 is far too small a number for the RAAF. How many should the RAAF acquire?

 

[Marc 1]

Extra lift capability will be provided by the five KC-30A multirole tanker-transport aircraft. "
As it is planned that the KC-30A are going to be used as transport as well as tankers, 5 is far too small a number for the RAAF. How many should the RAAF acquire?

That's a good question. Undoubtably more would be better than less - but at what opportunity cost? If we purchase another 10 airframes what would this purchase jepardise? Would all of them need to to be tanker configured, or could a few be just configured as 'trash haulers'? Do we purchase these airframes new, or given the much reduced flying rate of Air Force operations compared to commercial operations could we save hundreds of thousands per airframe by purchasing second hand to a configuration common to our existing airframes?

In the wake of the Jogjakarta prang there was a call for a larger VIP aircraft so the press corps could accompany our glorious leaders, there were some rumours of a VIP fitout being procured for one of the KC30's. The other reason cited was that the BBJ's are a little short on range on seriously long range transits - the KC-30 would solve that issue too. BUT that could mean that one out of our five valuable tanking assets is being used as a pollies chariot.

Perhaps 2 x A330's (common config with KC-30's in terms of engines etc) with no tanking equipment in a QC configurationmay be a smart purchase. Whilst there is an all cargo variant of the A330, the 200F which is due to fly shortly, we need something with a reinforced floor and cargo handling door and gear of the 200F but with the normal windows etc available on the passenger config. This may be problematic in terms of the RAAF being a lauch customer for the conversion (expensive). These airframes should be purchased second hand. This would then give a dedicated cargo/VIP config that would ensure the tankers (a force multiplier) would not be being used on a secondary taskings. At the same time perhaps a couple of extra second hand A330's purchased and converted to KC-30A spec - but again the cost/benefit analysis would have to look at whether these purchases would place other programs at risk. Some savings could be made by either getting rid of the two BBJ's or dropping back to one for domestic taskings.

As airlines are parking (particularly older) airframes at the moment, this may be the right time to snap up some moderate hour/cycle used airframes at decent prices...

Comments?

 

[StevoJH]

Out of curiousity, is it possible to design a "modular" VIP fitout? If you could design one, and convince the government to purchase another pair of KC30's to replace the BBJ's you might get away with it.

Basically 1-2 Aircraft in the VIP fit but if the VIP fitout could be stripped out and replaced as needed (even if not quickly), those aircraft could be stripped out and reconfigured to the standard config in times of crisis.

 

[Marc 1]

Out of curiousity, is it possible to design a "modular" VIP fitout? If you could design one, and convince the government to purchase another pair of KC30's to replace the BBJ's you might get away with it.

Basically 1-2 Aircraft in the VIP fit but if the VIP fitout could be stripped out and replaced as needed (even if not quickly), those aircraft could be stripped out and reconfigured to the standard config in times of crisis.

Yes, the modules consisting of say floor and 3 rows of seats, or say a galley or toilet module can be rolled in and out as needed. In commercial aircraft that are delivered in Quick Change (QC) configuration, it takes about 6-8 hours to go from an all freight to all passenger config. Some aircraft are configurable as Combi's - they may put seats in the front half of the cabin and cargo sealed behind a bulkhead for the rest of the cabin.

 

[Oz-Watcher]

I am wondering if anyone has heard anything more on project wedgetail. I noticed an article in the Australia, which I have posted below but I have not seen or read anything else from other sources. Does anyone know if this article is accurate

The Australian
THE RAAF's Project Wedgetail, a $4 billion airborne early warning aircraft, has passed a series of flight demonstrations and laboratory tests on its powerful radar system and could begin flight training later this year.

Senior defence and industry sources say the Wedgetail, a modified Boeing 737-700 aircraft with a specially developed phased array radar, performed well in flight tests over the Northern Territory a fortnight ago.

Ten days ago, a Wedgetail aircraft flying out of Canberra with senior defence officials on board also performed satisfactorily, with its radar detecting RAAF F/A-18 fighters from Williamtown air base, near Newcastle.

The aerial trials of the high-tech airborne air defence system followed a lengthy series of laboratory tests earlier this year on the performance of the Wedgetail's radar by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Lincoln Laboratory.

The Lincoln Laboratory assessment found there were no fundamental performance problems with the state-of-the art phased array radar that would place the Wedgetail project in jeopardy.

A key problem with the Wedgetail's radar has been its ability to pick out genuine targets from among the clutter its highly developed software generates.

The radar still does not comply with the full contracted specification designated by the RAAF, but defence experts are now far more confident it is a sound architecture to build on.

"The performance of the radar gave great encouragement for the future. It was a promising set of trials and a confidence builder for the RAAF," observed one defence industry source.

Already running 38 months late, Project Wedgetail is planned as the nerve centre of Australia's next-generation air defence system, with the aircraft serving as flying command centres.

The Wedgetail's radar is designed to track hundreds of targets in the air and at sea simultaneously, including cruise missiles at a range of more than 400km.

Boeing, the prime contractor for Wedgetail together with Northrop Grumman and the Defence Materiel Organisation, are due to discuss the future of the Wedgetail project at a high-level meeting in Canberra next month.

Boeing has incurred losses estimated at $1.7 billion on the Wedgetail project after failing to meet a number of performance milestones in its contract with the DMO. Three years have elapsed since the commonwealth made any payments to the US aviation and defence giant.

 

[Navor86]

Any news on the activation of 4 Squadron.
This Unit was suppossed to be similiar to the USAF Special Tactics Squadrons. IIRC it was due to be established in May but I havent herad anything about it.
Or was this whole RAAF Special Forces Project abandoned?

 

[Marc 1]

Any news on the activation of 4 Squadron.
This Unit was suppossed to be similiar to the USAF Special Tactics Squadrons. IIRC it was due to be established in May but I havent herad anything about it.
Or was this whole RAAF Special Forces Project abandoned?

I don't hold high hopes for it. For a start there are not many special forces ops occur between 8am and 4 pm and there would be no guarantee of a 5 star hotel to sleep in after 4pm either! The other disturbing issue is that some people might die - I cannot see how any of that would fit with current RAAF operations and expectations.nfloorl:

 

[Aussie Digger]

Any news on the activation of 4 Squadron.
This Unit was suppossed to be similiar to the USAF Special Tactics Squadrons. IIRC it was due to be established in May but I havent herad anything about it.
Or was this whole RAAF Special Forces Project abandoned?

Nope, 4 Sqn exists, it is based at RAAF Williamtown and they are recruiting from musterings within RAAF.

As you can probably imagine, such a unit will take years to become operational. 2 Cdo Regt (formerly 4RAR Cdo) has taken ten years to get to the point it is at now and the unit still doesn't manage to meet all the requirements placed upon it. Of course operational tempo is mostly responsible for that, but I can't see the RAAF being any less busy...

 

[south]

Nope, 4 Sqn exists, it is based at RAAF Williamtown and they are recruiting from musterings within RAAF.

As you can probably imagine, such a unit will take years to become operational. 2 Cdo Regt (formerly 4RAR Cdo) has taken ten years to get to the point it is at now and the unit still doesn't manage to meet all the requirements placed upon it. Of course operational tempo is mostly responsible for that, but I can't see the RAAF being any less busy...

4Sqn doesnt exist... yet.... I believe it will happen in a month or two, ATM FACDU is there.

not long though.