Royal Australian Air Force [RAAF] News, Discussions and Updates
Andrew McL
New Member
Jack
It's more than an MLU - it's constantly upgrading your avionics every couple of years to comply with GATM rules; it's upgrading and integrating EW sensors and countermeasures; it's new flight management systems software loads, etc etc...
None of these issues was a consideration on the 'steam-gauge' Caribou, but we've had constatnt headaches with the C-130J fleet, even though we're part of the J-user group (JUG) consortium which looks after 130+ C-130Js worldwide.
Managing this on our own for a 10-strong C-27J fleet will be very expensive, and we're unlikely to have the same requirements as those of Italy, Greece, Lithuania or Morocco!
Andrew McL
New Member
If it were up to me, I'd ditch the C-27J idea.
Ideally, my ADF airlift fleet in 2020 would look like the following...
* 8 x King Air 350s for local ADF support and multi-engine crew training (+$0)
* 10 x C295s for regional support/humanitarian work with high level of contractor support ($700m)
* 8 x C-130Hs upgraded with new avionics and centre wing boxes. (+$300m)
* 12 x CH-47D+/Fs with a view to having a core fleet of 8-10 available. (+$250m)* 8 x C-17s (+$500m)
* 8 x KC-30s (3 with cargo doors and optional VIP interiors) (+$750m)
* 12 x C-130Js (+$0)
Total extra acquisiton cost = ~$2.5bn, less the estimated $1.5bn for the C-27Js, equals an extra $1bn of funding would be required in the DCP.
The C-130Hs and C-130Js would need replacing from the mid 2020s - look at A400M, or whetever Lockmart has on the drawing board as a C-130 replacement.
Ideally, my ADF airlift fleet in 2020 would look like the following...
* 8 x King Air 350s for local ADF support and multi-engine crew training (+$0)
* 10 x C295s for regional support/humanitarian work with high level of contractor support ($700m)
* 8 x C-130Hs upgraded with new avionics and centre wing boxes. (+$300m)
* 12 x CH-47D+/Fs with a view to having a core fleet of 8-10 available. (+$250m)* 8 x C-17s (+$500m)
* 8 x KC-30s (3 with cargo doors and optional VIP interiors) (+$750m)
* 12 x C-130Js (+$0)
Total extra acquisiton cost = ~$2.5bn, less the estimated $1.5bn for the C-27Js, equals an extra $1bn of funding would be required in the DCP.
The C-130Hs and C-130Js would need replacing from the mid 2020s - look at A400M, or whetever Lockmart has on the drawing board as a C-130 replacement.
So why have they kept the pilots flying King Airs out of Townsville in the mean time?
Andrew McL
New Member
The King Air crews at Townsville aren't necessarily the ACTUAL pilots who will fly the C-27Js or whatever we get. Some of them go on to C-130, AP-3C, SPA, or even C-17 and KC-30.
The whole idea of getting the King Airs was to develop and maintain ADF pilot and engineering capability on a modern multi-engined turbine and EFS equipped aircraft during the transition from Caribou to the BFA. The C-130J fleet isn't big enough to maintain the necessary training throughput and is flat out supporting a three aircraft deployment, while the AP-3C can hardly be called modern by comparison!
The King Airs have doubled up as ADF support assets, primarily for Norcom but also for the greater ADF, and have also been very handily placed to support flood relief efforts in recent years.
Hey Andrew - nice to catch up
I see where you are coming from re the C-27J, I am making the assumtion that you believe the USAF will eventually walk right away from it rather than maintaining a small (by USAF standards) fleet. That is a pity because I like the commonality it shares with the C-130J, but the last thing we need is an orphan fleet. We have surely learned from Seasprite that a unique asset is not necessarily the best asset.
Tas
They (SKAs) also have a warfighting role carrying a secret army surveillance package (ie COMINT).
The thing about replacing the Caribou is replacing its warfighting role which was deployment of army special forces and recce teams behind enemy lines. While it certainly never looked it the ‘Bou was actually quite stealthy because it could be flown at very low level thanks to its very low speed! Also why it was the one aircraft in the RAAF that had a camouflage scheme trial. While the local and regional hay bombing, disaster relief stuff may have garnered the headlines it was not why the ‘Bou and its eventual replacement were really kept on the ORBAT after the expiration of the VietNam War trash hauling mission (at least according to RAAF and Army).
Which is why the L-3 built C-27J was so exciting to the ADF it is a tough, nifty airlifter that comes with: Electronic Warfare Self Protection Suites; AAR-47A(V)2 Missile Warning Systems; ALE-47(V) Threat Adaptive Countermeasures Dispensing Systems; APR-39B(V)2 Radar Warning Receivers; AN/APN-241 Radar Systems (with SAR mapping); 4 AN/ARC-210 Warrior Very High Frequency/Ultra High Frequency Communication Systems; KY-100 Units (crypto); HF 9550 Radios; APX-119 Identification Friend or Foe (Mode 4), and Blue Force Trackers. To go it alone and stick all that in a C-295 or even an Aliena built C-27J just for the RAAF would be high risk.
What the RAAF really needs to replace the ‘Bou is an OTS penetration air lifter capability. The old ‘Bou in PNG disaster relief stuff has long since expired and being replaced by enhanced regional assets. For disaster relief the real demand is flying in stuff for local distribution. Which is where the C-17A excels.
The problem is if the L-3 C-27J isn’t available then what can you acquire for the mission? In recent times because of the demand for SOF operations C-130Hs have been used extensively in support of their deployment. Some have even been fitted with the RHIB air drop apparatus. While refitted C-130Hs could sustain this side of the capability they can’t really do the 'Bou's old drop off and pick up mission because they are too big to get in and land around the traps.
An option would be to replace these C-130Hs with MC-130Js (which are very different to the C-130J) that are able to support a range of SOF missions plus can be used for IFR of helicopters. An SOF deployment helicopter could then be acquired to replace the ‘Bou/C-27J utilising the MC-130J for range extension when needed. The problem is there aren’t many helicopters that can carry the same loads a C-27J can and in particular the SOF vehicles. The CV-22A can’t do it. The MH-47G might but the CH-53K certainly can…
So I would suggest in order to fill the gap of C-130H and the ‘Bou/C-27J they should be replaced by the MC-130J and either the MH-47G or CH-53K say in numbers of around six to eight each. These two squadrons could form a SOF support wing with No. 4 Squadron. This would provide the SOF air deployment capability to the ADF as well as a significant CSAR capability to the RAAF.
Nice to see you back Andrew, just can't stay away, eh?
How certain are you that the BFA squadron won't be based in Townsville?
Even the Force Posture Review (Phase 1) recommended this...
Andrew McL
New Member
Nup!
Obviously i can't be 100%, but I understand a site survey has been done there for the C-27J. If we go with the C295 or another type, things could change.
It also looks like an upgraded C-130H is off the table.
You sure? In white painted aircraft with no unusual antennae??? If so, I'm not sure that's something you should be revealing, Abe.
Just remember you're always welcome around here and some of the less "rational people" who infect some other websites around the place, aren't...
Hmm, I get the Richmond idea, especially if the BFA is going to be used in a SOCOMD support role, but if the capability is mainly intended as a "battlefield airlifter" then surely it would be more geographically suited in Townsville, supporting our major land force elements that actually require "battlefield airlift"?
Having to deploy to Townsville to support every large 3 Brigade exercise, might be great for the RAAF personnel who like their trips away, but it hardly strikes me as efficient...
The RAAF website lists that they provide ADF a surveillance capability...
I don't think Abe is breaking OPSEC by revealing this. It is a similar situation to the well-known capability some of our AP-3C's and Hercules have in these areas...
As AD pointed out it’s on the record that it has a surveillance capability. Since the Army unit that provided the capability were doing COMINT during the VietNam War one thing leads to another?
As to the lack of conspicuousness the US has a capability called CENTRA SPIKE on a King Air that provides a full COMINT/DF capability that is not only indistinguishable on the outside but also the inside of the aircraft! Any antennas are deployed when they are in their operational orbit at 10,000-20,000 feet where no one on the ground can see them. Further similar capabilities are available in a full kit type that can be plugged in and plugged out.
All of this is open source but the formal response from Defence on SKA surveillance capability is it exists but no comment on to its nature.
I don't understand how they thought they had a relevant comparison. One senario showed the F111s striking a unaware, undefended target. The other showed Hornets attacked by alert, already airborne defenders who appeared to already know the location of not only the Hornets but also their tankers, who I imagine would be holding station several hundred Ks offshore.
No mention was made of how the F111s would fare bounced by these same SU30s.
As for the disparaging comment that shornets could not be considered stealthy because they carry external ordinance, perhaps someone should tell them where the RAAF hangs the bombs on an F111.
Last edited:
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #3,033
The F-111 actually has an internal weapons bay, as well as external hardpoints. Depending on the mission loadout, which hardpoints and/or the internal bay would be used. For example, if the F-111 was to be tasked with a maritime strike mission and carry 4x Harpoon AShM, those IIRC only fit on the wing hardpoints. OTOH if the sortie was a strike vs. ground-based targets using LGB's, then the internal weapons bay along might be used.
Even with munitions in an internal bay, the F-111 RCS would likely resemble that of a barn door, since V-G wings do not exactly lend themselves to reliable redirection of radar signals.
-Cheers
How often though would RAAF F-111 ops depend on ground based designation for LGBs? The Pave Tack pod used for self designation occupied the entire bay, and then some.
Tee_Centre_10
Member
But in practice the weapons bay was used by the Pave Tack targeting pod. Without the pod on at least one F-111 in a formation, the F-111 was basically a truck for dumb bombs because Pave Tack was required for LGBs.
On such a thought, did any of the Pave Tack pods get preserved along with the aircraft? I would hope that at least one of the F-111s at Point Cook would have a pod. Perhaps they still have one or two at Amberley with their collection.
The transcript of the APA farce is up.
It's nothing new, America has to restart F-22 production or the world is going to end and we as Australia are bound as mates to convince America to do so...
Oh and apparently China will have 240x SU-35S's in-service by 2018.
http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/jfadt/defenceannualreport_2010_2011/hearings.htm
It's nothing new, America has to restart F-22 production or the world is going to end and we as Australia are bound as mates to convince America to do so...
Oh and apparently China will have 240x SU-35S's in-service by 2018.
http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/jfadt/defenceannualreport_2010_2011/hearings.htm
Interesting towards the end there !! When directly asked "What do we do now" Goon had no answer, we know what he wants to do, but maybe he is finally realising that it will not happen ?
weegee
Active Member
Air Power Australia
Hi Guys, I decided to go and have a look at Air Power Australia's website just now. Hmmm they have some interesting views don't they???? If I didn't know any better I would think that the F-111 was only around 10 years old and still ready to fight with the most modern aircraft around.
Then they go on to say that our fleet should consist of the F-111 and the FA-18's yet they go on to say that the Super Hornet is a under performer? which is strange as it is a bigger more grown up and a more capable version of the hornet we have at the moment and apparently the one we should keep over the super hornet?
Very strange indeed.
Hi Guys, I decided to go and have a look at Air Power Australia's website just now. Hmmm they have some interesting views don't they???? If I didn't know any better I would think that the F-111 was only around 10 years old and still ready to fight with the most modern aircraft around.
Then they go on to say that our fleet should consist of the F-111 and the FA-18's yet they go on to say that the Super Hornet is a under performer? which is strange as it is a bigger more grown up and a more capable version of the hornet we have at the moment and apparently the one we should keep over the super hornet?
Very strange indeed.
If anyone feels like a giggle, the data on the video and click 'show more' for some of the specs imputed to the Sim
[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17hKtTr-pkc"]H3 MilSim - F-35A v Su-35S - YouTube[/nomedia]
"In most simulations the F-35 is destroyed well before launching its weapons."
[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17hKtTr-pkc"]H3 MilSim - F-35A v Su-35S - YouTube[/nomedia]
"In most simulations the F-35 is destroyed well before launching its weapons."
Elegant demonstration of GIGO.