A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Political concerns on the NZ side of the"ditch" perhaps?
Or Auckland airport was simply more accessable on the apparent "short notice"?
Royal Australian Air Force [RAAF] News, Discussions and Updates
Or Auckland airport was simply more accessable on the apparent "short notice"?
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Well the Super Hornets overflew Brisbane today.
They passed over at about 1.10pm and were proceeded by 4x F-111's flying in a single line type formation, these were followed by a smallfast little fighter, which I suspect was a Hawk Mk 127, but I wasn't close enough to confirm and the 5x Shornets brought up the rear in a five ship "V" formation.
One pass and then they were gone towards Ipswich/Amberley. Perhaps fuel was a factor, who knows?
They passed over at about 1.10pm and were proceeded by 4x F-111's flying in a single line type formation, these were followed by a smallfast little fighter, which I suspect was a Hawk Mk 127, but I wasn't close enough to confirm and the 5x Shornets brought up the rear in a five ship "V" formation.
One pass and then they were gone towards Ipswich/Amberley. Perhaps fuel was a factor, who knows?
winnyfield
New Member
Ferry flight arrival in Auckland. 5 Rhinos + C17 + tanker
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UfZPj3Mf-Bs"]YouTube- RAAF F/A-18F SUPER HORNETS X5 + C-17 + KDC-10 TANKER ARRIVE AUCKLAND[/ame]
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UfZPj3Mf-Bs"]YouTube- RAAF F/A-18F SUPER HORNETS X5 + C-17 + KDC-10 TANKER ARRIVE AUCKLAND[/ame]
Thats a pretty nice convoy, I wonder when Nz will see something like it again.
Hope to see them out at Richmond soon, when ever they clear up all those C-130 lying around, I swear they have all of them there, 15+ sitting on the tarmac, more in the hangers?
Well we are all planed up with our F-111's, F-18 Sh, F-18 regulars and C-17's. Time to launch at NZ,...
Hope to see them out at Richmond soon, when ever they clear up all those C-130 lying around, I swear they have all of them there, 15+ sitting on the tarmac, more in the hangers?
Well we are all planed up with our F-111's, F-18 Sh, F-18 regulars and C-17's. Time to launch at NZ,...
I was sitting on my balcony at Kangaroo Point havin a smoke...and they flew right over my joint! Fuckin nice...yes, it was a hawk... it was flying on the left side of the formation and it was was rolling its wings... you could really see the size difference...they looked good (just hope they don't ding any of these jets)!
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
NZ? I thought we were launching at Japanese whalers or Asylem Seeker boats or whatever the flavour of the month is at the moment.
Japanese Asylem whalers.. The bastards. I think they will be first deployed again Scientologies cruise ships as soon as they can get an equiry going on that issue (seems to have died off).
I wonder if these will be ready for the next red flag event? Thats a USAF show (I think), so it should be interesting to see how these navy crates fly.
t68
Well-Known Member
Has any one got any info on the Caribou replacement?
The way it looks to myself that there is only really 3 aircraft that would be in the running for the job,
C27J Spartan
CH-47F Chinook
V-22 Osprey
Even tho the osprey looks the goods and is able to land and take off from unprepared airfield, i think price and maintenance looks set to be the killer of this aircraft.
A CH-47 can also land and take off from unprepared fields but will not have the range of a caribou used to have but will come in extremely handy for a pacific island solution when the need arises.
The C27J Spartan looks the most useful of the three types it can carry a useful load over distance but really lacks the short landing capability of the Caribou when you look at a Papua New Guinea deployment perspective.
All three can deploy paratrooper’s, airdrop supplies and in the Spartans case limited short take and landing from unprepared fields.
I believe if we were to go the V-22 or the CH-47F way RAAF will most likely have to go for a one for one replacement that’s, even to say that they want to get back into rotary assets again, RAAF most likely would like to go C27J Spartan,12 Spartans and when C130-H Hercules are retired replaced with four more C-17 Globemaster III,C130J are about halfway through there service life and will last a while longer with replacement with either more J’s or Airbus A400M,LM might upgrade the old Hercules to make it more completive with the A400M.
Army will probably need more than the seven CH-47F Chinooks announced in the past few day’s time will tell.
Starting the debate should all CH-47F be in RAAF colours or a mixed fleet between Army/RAAF?
The way it looks to myself that there is only really 3 aircraft that would be in the running for the job,
C27J Spartan
CH-47F Chinook
V-22 Osprey
Even tho the osprey looks the goods and is able to land and take off from unprepared airfield, i think price and maintenance looks set to be the killer of this aircraft.
A CH-47 can also land and take off from unprepared fields but will not have the range of a caribou used to have but will come in extremely handy for a pacific island solution when the need arises.
The C27J Spartan looks the most useful of the three types it can carry a useful load over distance but really lacks the short landing capability of the Caribou when you look at a Papua New Guinea deployment perspective.
All three can deploy paratrooper’s, airdrop supplies and in the Spartans case limited short take and landing from unprepared fields.
I believe if we were to go the V-22 or the CH-47F way RAAF will most likely have to go for a one for one replacement that’s, even to say that they want to get back into rotary assets again, RAAF most likely would like to go C27J Spartan,12 Spartans and when C130-H Hercules are retired replaced with four more C-17 Globemaster III,C130J are about halfway through there service life and will last a while longer with replacement with either more J’s or Airbus A400M,LM might upgrade the old Hercules to make it more completive with the A400M.
Army will probably need more than the seven CH-47F Chinooks announced in the past few day’s time will tell.
Starting the debate should all CH-47F be in RAAF colours or a mixed fleet between Army/RAAF?
Last edited:
t68
Well-Known Member
Yes i did think of it but went with the C27J as it shares the same glass cock pit and Rolls-Royce AE 2100 engine and six-blade propeller as a C130J witch would reduce operating and maintenance costs for the RAAF.
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
I thought that was all worked out in the early 90's? With the result that the Blackhawks transferred to the army, with the Chinooks removed from service, later to be replaced with more chinooks, this time run by the army.
t68, why rehash whats already been decided to be the best situation?
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #2,015
The EADS CASA CN-235 is also an option, but there are some caveats (with both I believe) on their use. The first is that the floor strength for the EADS aircraft is less than that of the C-130J or C-27J. This can be problematic as it becomes possible for a pallet loaded appropriately for a C-130J to be off-loaded for transshipment via a smaller transport and have the pallet damage the smaller transport. AFAIK this was not an issue using the DHC-4 Caribou because palletized loads from a C-130 had to be physically broken down to fit into a 'bou.
As for the RAAF getting some usage out of a transport re-roled for MPA, I am not certain that would work. As I have discussed earlier in other threads, the HC-144 Ocean Sentry used by the USCG operates as an MPA for EEZ, SAR and anti-trafficking. When needed, a module can be removed to allow transport of up to ~40 personnel or ~3 pallets/10,000 lbs of cargo. As I understand it, in order for the USCG aircraft to carry out the MPA missions, all the USCG aircraft need to be fitted with the appropriate senors and comm systems, and then there is a smaller number of MSP (Modular System Pallet) which are swapped around depending on which aircraft are needed for MPA ops. While this is a reasonsable way to provide a decent sized fleet of MPA aircraft and also provide some airlift.
The situation for the RAAF I suspect is different, IMO the RAAF aircraft would be primarily tasked as tranports, not MPA. This is because much/most of the EEZ/SAR and anti-trafficking air patrols are carried out by, or at the behest of the Australian Coastwatch. Through the contractor Surveillance Australia, there are/will be 10 Q300 and Q400 aircraft fitted out and operating solely as MPA with the appropriate radars, EO sensors and comm/data uplinks. Between these and other MPA aircraft (I believe that there is also one or more contractors for helibourne EEZ surveillance) in addition to systems like JORN and SECAR and the RAAF's AP-3C or upcoming P-8 MMA, the surveillance end seems covered. Instead, the shortage appears to be more in the transport/cargo side of the RAAF airfleet. If that is correct, then losing ~1,500 kg of cargo capacity (minor negative) and costing A$10+ million more for extra avionics (a major negative IMO) per aircraft does not seem sensible or needed.
-Cheers
t68
Well-Known Member
Well it is my understanding that it is not cut and dried on what will replace the DHC-4 Caribou aircraft.
If the requirement is rough/short STOL then the only replacement for the operation capability like Caribou in a pacific island solution is only CH47 Chinook as the C27J Spartan does not have the very short rough field STOL capability of Caribou (355mCaribou/500MSpartan,weight considerations), if the RAAF can overlook the shortfall in capability but with longer range and payload benefits then Spartan is the way to go. In the last few years of service were was Caribou mainly operating in Australia and the pacific islands.
In relation to why bring up the if the Chinook should be an RAAF asset, all Chinooks in the RAF service come under Joint Helicopter Command, if the Ch47F were to be assessed to be the replacement for Caribou IMO it would be best for Army and RAAF assets to come under a joint commanded like the British set up.
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/WhatWeDo/AirSafetyandAviation/JHC/
On the current D model that is in service now are the airframes themselves beyond there useable life, could they be refurbished and brought up to MH-47E standard and placed under Special Operations Command (SOCOM)
Last edited:
We need more chinooks. We can't operationally deploy ourselves effectively with what we have got right now.
Chinooks can also lift directly off/on ships (2 LHD + sealift + commerical ships).
CASA CN-235 I believe are used for antartic research. There may be specific areas where these aircraft might be useful, but that does not mean we need a fleet of them for the ADF. This may be worthwhile to talk to NZ about operating these specifically for pacific logistics and southern research.
C27J seem to be an attractive option linking into our existing herc logistics but with significantly lower running costs. We have significant heavy lift with C-17 and C-130, but there is a gap below this level. Flying c130's empty or less than half full (med flights, light logistics, aid flights etc) is wastage and ties up airframes that could be better tasked doing something else.
I would suggest a split purchase of Chinooks and C27J would be ideal and likely. I think the arguments will start about how many of each do we need to get.
Chinooks can also lift directly off/on ships (2 LHD + sealift + commerical ships).
CASA CN-235 I believe are used for antartic research. There may be specific areas where these aircraft might be useful, but that does not mean we need a fleet of them for the ADF. This may be worthwhile to talk to NZ about operating these specifically for pacific logistics and southern research.
C27J seem to be an attractive option linking into our existing herc logistics but with significantly lower running costs. We have significant heavy lift with C-17 and C-130, but there is a gap below this level. Flying c130's empty or less than half full (med flights, light logistics, aid flights etc) is wastage and ties up airframes that could be better tasked doing something else.
I would suggest a split purchase of Chinooks and C27J would be ideal and likely. I think the arguments will start about how many of each do we need to get.
t68
Well-Known Member
The more I think about it the more i tend to see the CH47F as a viable replacement for DHC-4 Caribou.
With a fleet of 18 Chinook airframes under a joint command structure i believe it is a win/win situation for the RAAF/Army/RAN, with the RAAF using C130J Hercules aircraft to bring in supples and logistic needs for the ADF.with an additional purchases of Hercules aircraft to replace the aging H model and possibly two more C17 to ease the burden of the current fleet.
C27J Spartan i don’t think is a necessity in a RAAF colours as J Hercules are capable off doing the job better and more efficiently than the Spartan.
With a fleet of 18 Chinook airframes under a joint command structure i believe it is a win/win situation for the RAAF/Army/RAN, with the RAAF using C130J Hercules aircraft to bring in supples and logistic needs for the ADF.with an additional purchases of Hercules aircraft to replace the aging H model and possibly two more C17 to ease the burden of the current fleet.
C27J Spartan i don’t think is a necessity in a RAAF colours as J Hercules are capable off doing the job better and more efficiently than the Spartan.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Actually the reverse is true, which is why RAAF is so keen to get a battlfield airlifter capability in-service. The majority of loads being lifted at present are not exceeding the Hercules capacity, but are in fact rather less than their maximum, particularly on intra-theatre lifts rather than inter-theatre lifts.
The C-27J for instance can carry these same loads at the fraction of the cost of sending a Hercules to do it.
Now RAAF needs additional airlift, whether C-130J Hercules is chosen or C-27J Spartan is chosen, acquisition costs will be incurred. It is the through-life support and operating costs that make the difference.
If you need to send an airlifter to Timor or the Solomans to deliver support for the deployed forces, but your required load can be carried by a C-27J, then why use a Hercules? They are more expensive to run and it is just wasted cost to do so.
RAAF is finding that this is very much the case. Now it will be operating Hercules for the forseeable future and in fact has a plan to obtain an additional 2x C-130J-30 airframes. RAAF already has greater airlift capacity with it's fleet of 4x C-17's and (planned) 14x Hercules than it ever had with the Caribou and H/J Hercules fleet (in terms of size of loads and equipment that can be lifted), but it doesn't have the numbers or airframes for concurrency that it used to have.
Instead of having an enormous fleet of Hercules and C-17 to provide airlift for loads that are rarely exceeding the C-27J's capacity, how can it make economical sense to use them?
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #2,020
I do agree that more CH-47's are needed for the ADF. However, given that Army is the current CH-47 operator, and has been since the RAAF gave up rotary wing ops, I see no advantage in creating a joint command structure to operate them. If some Chinooks were operated by the RAAF and some by Army and more were needed, then some form of joint structure might make sense. IMO to set something like this up would just duplicate effort and personnel between the RAAF and Army.
In terms of the C-130J being more efficient than the C-27J Spartan, that is true, just not in all cases. A C-130J can carry ~twice the load of a C-27J, and convey it ~twice the distance. However, if the mission profile fits within the weight/range limit of the C-27J then it is more efficient to utilize a Spartan than a C-130J. Given RAAF Hercs have flown enough transport missions half empty to have had people comment on about it, having a somewhat smaller transport that can transport small loads more efficiently than a C-130J but otherwise has much in common with the new Hercs seems sensible.
The question then becomes what sort of mix should be acquired. The ADF currently has (or is receiving) or had, 7 CH-47 Chinooks, 12 DHC-4 Caribou and 12 C-130H Hercules. The Caribous are either already grounded or not all available for operations if not yet retired. Some have suggested straight replacements of a dozen each C-27J Spartans and C-130J Hercules II's, others have suggested more of a split airfleet mix, with 18 Spartans and 6 C-130J's to replace the Caribou and C-130H Hercs.
While using the CH-47 as a 'bou replacement has been suggested, I am not certain that the employment method Army has for the Chinook would deliver service comparable to that of the 'bou. A Caribou travels about 100 kts faster than a CH-47, but carries ~1,500 kg less and can only cover ~half the distance. Therefore the question becomes, what does the ADF want/need the 'bou replacement to do?
I doubt those that know can/will say anything, but it is a good question to ask.
-Cheers