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

[Aussie Digger]

I look forward to reading it at some point. You looking to a career change?

Nah, don't have enough interest in "schmoozing" with senior Defence and Defence Industry types to attempt to get a few crumbs out of them for stories...

Agreed to this instance and to represent the publication for the pass and the chance to attend as many briefings as I wanted (or in reality had time for). I doubt I'll be making a career out of it...

And just so no-one accuses me of a lack of verification, I've attached my credentials...

 

[gf0012-aust]

This is the first time I've read of using RAM coatings, conductive paint, "metallizing" the canopy of the Super Hornet.

It's been stated before on the Shornet.

You can see the coatings (Gold/Iridium) in certain angles.

It's esp noticeable on US fixed wing combat aircraft (because there are more photos about!)

 

[Aussie Digger]

On another forum there was an journalist ("Rezende" I think his name was) that got access to the Brazilian FX-2 summary report. According to him the numbers in that report showed that Rafale with a weapons loadout had lower RCS than the SH with a weapons loadout.

This was Rezende's exact comment about it,

By the way, FAB papers shows that Rafale, at attack configuration,
has 1% of F/A-18E/F radar signature at similar conditions...
I said the Rafale signature was 99% lower at FULL LOAD configuration.
I'm not only a journalist, I'm a Brazilian Legislative Government officer.

Credible?

 

[StingrayOZ]

This leads me to wonder how this will affect the Battlefield Airlifter. The C-27J was the front runner for a variety of reasons including availability under FMS and its commonalies with the C-130J, including cargo bay cross section and engines etc. If we go the way of a C-17 / A400M (or notional Lockheed Super Herc) the C-27J loses its commonality arguement.

I think the A400m still has to prove itself as a good buy. We have good heavy lift with our C-17 fleet.

There is still a lot of stuff that the C130 and the C27J can carry. C-130 can carry a bushmaster for example. I don't think the A400 buys us into some sort of elite lift capability (well not like the C-17 did). We will be able to afford a lot more C27's than A400m's.

 

[StevoJH]

The A400M if proven successfull in service might be a good option to replace the C-130's. However, it probably depends on what the C-130's are actually used to carry. If they normally fly around half empty with the C-17's carrying anything a bit larger then there is probably not much point in going for a bigger airframe.

However if the C-130's are often utilised to maximum capacity and/or their dimensions are limiting vehicle choice for the ADF to the detriment of capability, then the larger A400M or additional C-17's may be the best option.

 

[Aussie Digger]

The A400M if proven successfull in service might be a good option to replace the C-130's. However, it probably depends on what the C-130's are actually used to carry. If they normally fly around half empty with the C-17's carrying anything a bit larger then there is probably not much point in going for a bigger airframe.

However if the C-130's are often utilised to maximum capacity and/or their dimensions are limiting vehicle choice for the ADF to the detriment of capability, then the larger A400M or additional C-17's may be the best option.

Our next generation of vehicles are going to be much heavier than the current, across the board, with even the G Wagon fleets gaining SEK (Survivability Enhancement Kits) on top of which our JLTV fleet (so-called for the sake of brevity) will place a strain on airlift and of course our ASLAV and M113AS3/4 replacements will all be much heavier.

Every vehicle to be deployed will feature armour protection plus other enhancements all of which add weight, which is not necessarily representative of previous ADF deployments where a C-130 sized aircraft was seen as sufficient.

On top of which the range over which we are deploying the bulk of our forces seems to be increasing, not decreasing. Increased sea transport capability will help of course but not in landlocked countries where it is difficult to transit through other areas to get to the AOR.

All of these issues point to a requirement for a larger, more capable airlift fleet and therefore I think this keeps the A400m in the game, unless L-M develops a significantly enlarged C-130 capability in future...

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The only problem with all this is the Army doesn't really care about vehicular air lift. With the C-17 in service for administration deployments the only operational vehicle lift role is for special recce units. The C-27J and C-130H/J have no problems lifting the Supacat and similar vehicles. Otherwise there just isn't a need.

 

[Aussie Digger]

The only problem with all this is the Army doesn't really care about vehicular air lift. With the C-17 in service for administration deployments the only operational vehicle lift role is for special recce units. The C-27J and C-130H/J have no problems lifting the Supacat and similar vehicles. Otherwise there just isn't a need.

Not when we are choosing our operational deployments overseas and can move in and out of relatively secure airbases for the Admin moves you mention, but that is simply one operational construct.

No matter Army's level of usage on current operations I would find it rather surprising if the ability to airlift light armour into a theatre under operational circumstances was a capability that ADF thinks it can do without. I know the light infantry-centric ethos of our Army holds an enormous amount of sway, but putting armour on the ground quickly was needed even for the low level of operational risk we face during Interfet.

Event the Supcats and 2 Cdo's Bushmasters are heavier than the previous generation. I can't that changing when these vehicles are replaced...

The move towards a light mechanised force, if nothing demonstrates the operational focus Australia has on deploying light armour for operations.

AVM Brown also states at present that Army's preference for heavier vehicles is pushing towards larger overall aircraft with an A400m sized aircraft the likely replacement for the C-130J's around 2025...

 

[Abraham Gubler]

No matter Army's level of usage on current operations I would find it rather surprising if the ability to airlift light armour into a theatre under operational circumstances was a capability that ADF thinks it can do without. I know the light infantry-centric ethos of our Army holds an enormous amount of sway, but putting armour on the ground quickly was needed even for the low level of operational risk we face during Interfet.

It’s the Army’s senior RAAC officers that reject the airlift option out of hand. Because they know that to deploy a battle group with force support requires 2,000 soldiers, 200 A Vehicles and 500 B Vehicles. That is of course without sustainment. Even with 24 C-17As and an air transport distance of only 1,000km it would take the RAAF weeks to deploy that force and its logistics.

Even a stripped down “air mech” combat team with ASLAVs (lightest A vehicle) without its support echelons – going in with nothing but ammo and fuel onboard the vehicles – would require the RAAF’s entire force of C-130s and they could only fly out 1,000km if you want them to return. The A400M enables the bigger LAND 400 vehicle for the stripped down mech combat team and increase in air landing radius to 2,000km.

But neither of these cases are realistic mission options for the Army.

AVM Brown also states at present that Army's preference for heavier vehicles is pushing towards larger overall aircraft with an A400m sized aircraft the likely replacement for the C-130J's around 2025...

Air Force loves Army vehicle growth because they get to make arguments for bigger aircraft. Of course come 2025 and A400M is likely to be the only aircraft option available. Especially as the C-130Js wing vibration problems come home to roost.

 

[Raven22]

The only thing in the LAND400 requirement that relates to airlift is that the platform must be able to be airlifted in a C17. Airlift just isn't a priority for army as moving armour by air is unworkable in any sort of contingency that requires tempo.

Because they know that to deploy a battle group with force support requires 2,000 soldiers, 200 A Vehicles and 500 B Vehicles.

I don't think the ARG is a good example of the numbers required to deploy a battlegroup - the ARG includes a whole lot of random crap that a force moved by air wouldn't require. Anyway, there is no way in hell the ARG has 200 A vehicles. It only has a tank troop and two mounted combat teams. Even allowing for every protected vehicle in the echelons to be considered an A vehicle, you wouldn't get a number larger than 80. There's no way the ARG has 500 B vehicles either. That would mean that there was a vehicle for every three soldiers. Whoever added up those numbers must have gotten over-excited.

 

[Aussie Digger]

I wasn't considering movng an entire battlegroupby air, clearly we haven't got the assets or need for that.

But when you consider that even LAVIII's are effectively to big to move by C-130 then the argument for a larger aircraft is self-explanatory. Of course we have C-17's but they are an even more limited resource than our tacair fleet in numbers and usage demands.

I'm not wedded to the A400m aircraft itself, but a platform of that size and capability I think is a must for Australia.

I understand completely the RAAF's desire for bigger aircraft, but surely there is an element of desire for the capability because it allows them to actualy do more...

 

[Todjaeger]

I wasn't considering movng an entire battlegroupby air, clearly we haven't got the assets or need for that.

But when you consider that even LAVIII's are effectively to big to move by C-130 then the argument for a larger aircraft is self-explanatory. Of course we have C-17's but they are an even more limited resource than our tacair fleet in numbers and usage demands.

I'm not wedded to the A400m aircraft itself, but a platform of that size and capability I think is a must for Australia.

I understand completely the RAAF's desire for bigger aircraft, but surely there is an element of desire for the capability because it allows them to actualy do more...

There is still the very real issue of just how many scenarios where vehicular airlift is required, and how often those will realistically occur. What percentage of lift missions which the RAAF currently engages in have the C-130's flying at max space and/or weight for air cargo? From memory, once of the arguments for the C-27J as a DHC-4 replacement was that the Hercs often flew with only one or two pallets loaded, and the rest of the space/weight capacity unused. This was done because there were lift missions which required a pallet of widgets to be moved from Point A to Point B but was too far, or just a bit too large, for the DHC-4 to perform the lift. With a smaller and more efficient airlifter which would be more capable (range/space/weight) than a DHC-4, some of those inefficient moves could be tasked to more appropriate lift assets.

In the case of the A400M, it still would not have sufficient weight capacity to lift an M1A1 AIM, and depending on what ends up being selected for the ASLAV/M113 replacement for Land 400, the A400M could still end up having issues. IIRC the A400M was supposed to have a lift capability of ~37 tons, but due to some weight issues, currently can lift ~30 tons which is about a ton under the weight of a non-uparmoured Puma. While I do not know if the Puma is a contender for a Land 400 IFV/armoured vehicle, a number of similar-type vehicles are close to or push past a 30 ton limit, particularly with armour kits included. All this means that the A400M might still not be sufficient for armoured vehicle lift...

It would be interesting to know, what weights, volumes, and minimum cargo volumes the logisticians plan out as being required for various scenarios. Those factors, coupled with lift distance, are really what should drive any airlift replacement.

-Cheers

 

[hairyman]

It appears to me that our new tankers are being ignored in this debate. Is this because they are only suitable for moving people, or what?

 

[Todjaeger]

It appears to me that our new tankers are being ignored in this debate. Is this because they are only suitable for moving people, or what?

The A330 MRTT are capable, as I understand it, to move palletized cargo. However, they are not capable of handling 'outsized' cargo, which essentially means any item(s) which does not fit onto a single standardized pallet. Therefore vehicles are out, as a single pallet is not large enough to fit something like an ASLAV onto it.

Please note, I am not saying the MRTT can only transport a single pallet, in truth I am uncertain how many cargo pallets they can lift, and/or what weight limitations would apply to the pallets, but since the MRTT does not have a rear cargo door like most military transport do, load items above a certain size cannot be fitted into the hold.

-Cheers

 

[Aussie Digger]

The A330 MRTT are capable, as I understand it, to move palletized cargo. However, they are not capable of handling 'outsized' cargo, which essentially means any item(s) which does not fit onto a single standardized pallet. Therefore vehicles are out, as a single pallet is not large enough to fit something like an ASLAV onto it.

Please note, I am not saying the MRTT can only transport a single pallet, in truth I am uncertain how many cargo pallets they can lift, and/or what weight limitations would apply to the pallets, but since the MRTT does not have a rear cargo door like most military transport do, load items above a certain size cannot be fitted into the hold.

-Cheers

Th KC-30A's have the same under-floor cargo carrying system as most A330's. They can carry underfloor cargo capacities of varying configuration without affecting passenger or refuelling capabilities. They can't carry vehicles though.


Transport

 

[Paul OZ]

So the C-295M hasn't been mentioned. I think the C-27J has been the front runner for some time now. But I suspect in these tight fiscal times (one natural disaster after another) and the C17 purchase (dropping the 2 C-130J's) that the C-295M might just sneak over the line. Anyone think this is possible?


Regards.

 

[winnyfield]

Not sure whether to put this in the Army or Air Force thread. But considering the payload:

Australia has exclusive use of a Mi-26

DVIDS - News - Australia contracts new gigantic helicopter for Afghanistan

Australia contracts new gigantic helicopter [Mi-26] for Afghanistan
Date03.15.2011
Date Posted:03.19.2011 04:02
Location:TARIN KOT, AF

TARIN KOT, Afghanistan – The Mil Mi-26 helicopter, also known as the Halo, is arguably one of the largest helicopters in existence.

This eight bladed helicopter, capable of carrying large up-armored vehicles or even other helicopters, is now the first air asset strictly controlled by Australia in the Middle East, said Australian Navy Lt. Cmdr. Andrew Willett, logistics planner at Headquarters, Joint Operations Command.

Willet said although the Australian Defence Force has helicopters in Afghanistan, they are primarily International Security Assistance Force assets. The final word on their use lies with ISAF, but the Mil Mi-26, which was contracted from Russia, answers only to Australia.

“This belongs to us,” said Willet. “It belongs to our force support.”

The Halo, which will be opperating in Uruzgan province, will still be used in support of the ISAF mission, but ADF now has easier access to much needed air support in the area, said Australian Army Maj. Paul Luck, supply officer for 2nd Mentoring Task Force, Combined Team-Uruzgan.

Since many small patrol bases do not have runways for airplanes, the only way to get supplies to them by air is with a helicopter. With the Mil Mi-26, servicemembers can now transport nearly 100 troops or 20,000 kg. of goods directly to their destination.

The helicopter’s first mission demonstrated just how much servicemembers in Afghanistan can benefit.

Luck said the mission was a simple two-hour movement of equipment from one base to another, but without the massive cargo capacity of the Mil Mi-26, it would have taken a large ground convoy more than two days to complete the task.

“It’s heaps easier,” said Luck. “Plus it keeps our soldiers’ footprint off the ground.”

Willet said one of the main reasons for contracting the helicopter is to reduce reliance on road transport.

“Any time we step outside the wire, there’s an increased threat,” said Willet. “[The Mil Mi-26] is not going to get rid of ground convoys altogether, but it’ll reduce their frequency.”

Australia’s newest air asset will continue to run support missions throughout Uruzgan province – increasing safety, security and efficiency for coalition forces.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Not sure whether to put this in the Army or Air Force thread. But considering the payload:

Australia has exclusive use of a Mi-26

DVIDS - News - Australia contracts new gigantic helicopter for Afghanistan

Very interesting. I would imagine any helo asset would be racking up the hours over there. With limited chinooks and other heavy lift theres a definate shortage. I wonder if there is any reason they went russian. Seems curious.

 

[uuname]

Very interesting. I would imagine any helo asset would be racking up the hours over there. With limited chinooks and other heavy lift theres a definate shortage. I wonder if there is any reason they went russian. Seems curious.

An Mi-26 has been used before.

Operation SLIPPER Afghanistan - Department of Defence

Perhaps they were happy with the service?

I would imagine it came down mostly to price and availability, but the capability to lift a Bushmaster has to be a plus...

 

[StingrayOZ]

I bet it would be.

I've always heard it was quiet capable, reading through the stories on wiki it seems magical.
* Lifted a 25 t ice block with a mamooth in it.
* Recovered Chinooks from a mountain top.
* Can carry 147 troops as it was when it was shot down.

Hmm, theres your bou replacement. Deploy companies with equipment directly from the thing. Carry M113, bushmasters, recover F-35's etc. 2000km range.