Try CH-53K. Most of the above and you can base from an LHD as well.
Royal Australian Air Force [RAAF] News, Discussions and Updates
The RAAF ordered the CH-47C in 1972 after years of exposure to US Army CH-47s in VietNam. The CH-53D was probably a better option than the CH-47C but more expensive. Since then the CH-53 has been developed into the three engineed CH-53E which is a much bigger helicopter.
winnyfield
New Member
CH-53E still folds up more compactly than a CH-47.
Big as in weight, engines, cost.
Just out of interest.
Can you make a reasonably accurate guesstimate regarding bang for buck comparison between CH-47F and CH-53K?
I guess there would be both purchasing and operating costs to consider versus load/range.
cheers
rb
Not right now. But the CH-53K would be much better for an amphibious force because it was designed for ship use. It can also carry more, further and all that for the same ammount of aircrew.
I compared the specs between the Mil Mi 26 Halo and the CH53K. The halo kinda makes the CH53 a bit puny. Halo lifts 20 tonne or 90 troops &the CH53K 13 tonne or 55 troops. Halo has range of 1036 nautical miles with auxiliary tanks, whilst the CH53K has a rang of 454 nautical miles with no reserves. The 8 bladed rotor diameter of the Halo is 32 metres whilst the CH53K 6 bladed rotor is 24 metres.
It would be possible to argue that with its range and lifting abilities, the Halo could be a possible Caribou replacement. Granted that the Caribous range was further the Halo does of the ADF / RAAF are rather unique lifting capability. Cost wise it possible would be cheaper per unit than the CH53K.However this is only really moot because the ADF would not procure this system because of a wide variety of issues; e.g., it's Russian and its a 1977 design.
Sure and if you compare the specs between a 747F and the C-17A you get the same results. So why do air forces buy the C-17A instead of the 747F? Because it’s a tactical platform. The CH-53K can carry its heavy load into combat from basing on an amphibious assault ship. The Mi 26 can’t do that.
The Caribou could only carry four tonnes. I’m sure both the CH-53K and the Mi 26 can carry four tonnes much further than the Caribou. Bu the Caribou would burn <5% in fuel $$$ for the payload. Neither are realistic options for Caribou replacement. The RAAF wants C-27J, C-27J or C-27J. Or if you roll Caribou replacement in with C-130H replacement: MC-130J. Because that’s the kind of missions the aircraft are flying. Not VietNam or PNG era trash hauling but SOF deployment and support.
With the increase in payload-range the MRH90 will bring to the table compared to the S-70 its possible a lot of CH-47D missions (especially in SOF deployment) can be taken on by the new platform. In which case it wouldn’t hurt to look at the CH-53K as a better maritime logistics platform than the CH-47F.
I agree with your analysis and really was just chucking the idea into the air & see what came down. The CH53K would be ideal for the RAN. Actually maybe a composite RAAF / RAN unit similar to how to the poms were flying the harriers on their last carriers. There would be no supply train issues because it is used by the USMC.
I noticed previous comments in this forum regarding EADS A400M as a possibility for the RAAF. It is something we looked at on the NZDF forum and IIRC 2 aircraft would be ideal for the RNZAF, reality is it won't happen. But the RAN & RNZN have formed an ANZAC logistics force built around HMNZS Canterbury and will presume then HMAS "Largs Bay" for use in disaster relief etc in the Pacific region. Now the CH53K would work in with that too. If the ANZAC Disaster Response and Relief concept was expanded to include airlift capability then it could be argued that a joint A400M buy between the two partners would be of benefit to ANZAC Disaster Response and Relief. Say three possibly four airframes. All the assets in the ANZAC Disaster Response and Relief Group would have to be ring fenced. The reason why I like the A400M is that it can carry more than the C130H/J, has a greater range and has an ability to get into places that a C17 couldn't.
Of course NZ has a huge large budget deficit due to two seismic events in my home town and I presume the current economic climate precludes any extra investment in items suggested here. However I do have the faintest hope that the public attitude towards defence and defence spending is changing, favouring a stronger defence. I was at a university lecture, last week, where the at least 90% students were aged between 18 - 25. The number present was about 80. The question posed to them was list three reasons for NZ becoming Australia's seventh State, and three against. In the reasons for everyone said defence and security. When asked why the most common answer given was because NZDF was to small and we don't have an army, navy or air force. When I explained how this sorry state of affairs occurred the common sentiment was how could people be so stupid. I am a student on the course. So that is my reason for hoping that we might be seeing the start of a sea change in the publics concerns about NZ defence and lacks thereof.
Last edited:
to give some perspective
this diameter is the equiv of your average 1-1.5mw wind turbine but with a helo body underneath it....
While a CH-53K might look good, I'd say the costs associated with getting it over the CH-47F would be the main turn off. And were only getting 7 CH-47Fs (unless we plan to get more/upgrade our current CH-47Ds... can someone confirm this?) if we swapped how much CH-53Ks would we even get? Is it all worth it in the end.
meatshield
Active Member
I don't know about the Pic but I saw the news article on the ABC news last night. 2 got out before it crashed.
perhaps
RAAF Roulettes ground after crash
more of same
http://www.p3air.com/2011/raaf-roulettes-ground-after-crash
To note - trainee instructor and instructor ejected safely
rb
John Newman
The Bunker Group
And today to add to the PC9 crash, news of an Omega tanker, that the RAAF regularly charters, crashing during take off in the US, see link below:perhaps
RAAF Roulettes ground after crash
more of same
RAAF Roulettes ground after crash « P3air
To note - trainee instructor and instructor ejected safely
rb
Omega tanker crashes at Point Mugu | Australian Aviation Magazine
Apparently this aircraft was the one that recently escorted the new F/A-18F's to Malaysia for Exercise Bersama Shield.
Omega operated 2 x 707's and 1 x DC-10 tanker, this will certainly reduce their capacity and availability, and Omega also is used by the RAAF in the delivery of the F/A-18F's too.
Wonder how long we still have to wait for the KC30 MRTT's??
didnt omega buy our old tankers ? it would be funny if they use those for the RAAF
Is there any word what we are doing yet, we were to order this year ?
does anyone know what would be the latest we can get our test/trainers and then to put up a squadron around 2018 ?
It looks at this stage if we go ahead with our plan starting with 2 in 2014 to a total of 10 with the final 4 of the 14 delivered in 2017. They will be initially block 1 then block 2 and not the block 3 as planed till 2017/8
http://armed-services.senate.gov/statemnt/2011/05 May/Gilmore 05-19-11.pdf
Currently, I expect an operational assessment of aircraft with Block 2 mission systems capabilities to begin early in 2015, and initial operational test and evaluation of aircraft with the final set of Block 3 mission systems capabilities to begin during spring 2017. There are a number of prerequisites to conducting operational testing, including that development of all Block 3 capabilities is complete and they are certified for use by operational pilots, that all airworthiness certifications are complete, and a full mission data load is available.
Is there any word what we are doing yet, we were to order this year ?
does anyone know what would be the latest we can get our test/trainers and then to put up a squadron around 2018 ?
It looks at this stage if we go ahead with our plan starting with 2 in 2014 to a total of 10 with the final 4 of the 14 delivered in 2017. They will be initially block 1 then block 2 and not the block 3 as planed till 2017/8
http://armed-services.senate.gov/statemnt/2011/05 May/Gilmore 05-19-11.pdf
Currently, I expect an operational assessment of aircraft with Block 2 mission systems capabilities to begin early in 2015, and initial operational test and evaluation of aircraft with the final set of Block 3 mission systems capabilities to begin during spring 2017. There are a number of prerequisites to conducting operational testing, including that development of all Block 3 capabilities is complete and they are certified for use by operational pilots, that all airworthiness certifications are complete, and a full mission data load is available.
Last edited:
The RAAF B707s haven't been disposed of yet. They are still on the tarmac at RAAF Richmond.
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
My bad, for some reason I thought they were sold to Omega, not sure why....
From doing some reading the RAAF had 5 other 707's (as transports) at various times, but I couldn't find exactly what happened to them, were they scrapped or sold on?