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

[swerve]

Personally, although I can see Alenia's point of view in this (ex-USAF C-27Js taking away new build orders), I don't think it was a good move. Regardless of contractual obligations or exact wording, many are going to see this as Alenia not supporting their products.
It screws over the resale value to a purchaser when disposing of the aircraft after service. Who is going to pay top dollar for a used (but still very serviceable) aircraft that the manufacturer refuses to support?

Are air forces now going to start wondering if Alenia is going to screw them over when it comes time to sell their surplus C-27Js down the road?
Will it give potential M-346 purchasers pause for extra thought about the assumptions they had made regarding residual values during the life of the type?

You don't see Lockheed Martin throwing a fit every time an air force buys ex-USAF F-16s or C-130s. Bell and Sikorsky don't throw their toys out of the pram if anyone buys surplus UH-1s or U/SH-60s.

Very different. In your own words,

"It screws over the resale value to a purchaser when disposing of the aircraft after service. Who is going to pay top dollar for a used (but still very serviceable) aircraft that the manufacturer refuses to support? ".

Consider how many of them apply to this situation. "[A]fter service" - does not apply, since they haven't been in service. "sed" - ditto. They are unused. If they were normal used aircraft, that had been in service, there would be no problem.

In this case, the USA is proposing to sell new, unused aircraft which it bought at a discounted price based on an undertaking to buy a much larger number.

Alenia is not threatening to withdraw support from any other aircraft, & is happy to support used aircraft which are sold on, for example the ex-AMI G.222s bought by the USA for the Afghan air force, which were refurbished by Alenia & are now supported by it. Ditto other Alenia-built second hand aircraft.

This is a very special case. I can't imagine any other customers imagining that a similar sanction would be applied to them. Why would it? Who else is likely to negotiate a price with Alenia on the basis of buying 145 aircraft, then cut it to 21 at the same price, which it immediately tries to sell in competition with new-build aircraft?

I've never heard of anyone else pulling the same trick, or the USAF doing it before this, so LM et al have never had any reason to complain.

 

[swerve]

Looks like Alemia isn't the only foreign company getting shafte by the USAF. US Air Force cancels deal for Brazilian-made aircraft | Aviation & Air Force News at DefenceTalk That makes three if you count the KC30 debacle.

Embraer's not been shafted on that one so far. It was shafted over the Aerial Common Sensor, where the US chose an Embraer aircraft for what was supposed to be a system with a minimal basic fit plus modular optional extra payloads, then kept adding more & more of what was supposed to be included in the extras into the basic fit until they were more or less asking it to carry all the modules at the same time, & the aircraft was overloaded.

Very much like what happened to Agusta-Westland (same owners as Alenia) with the US presidential helicopter programme. Perfectly good helicopter, ruined by the user's programme managers adding more & more stuff to it, over & above the original specification.

 

[jack412]

just a quick post of 9 pages for those that follow the amusing antics of APA
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-18089.html

the funny bit is that APA clown club and Co say that the new aim-120d has a 20nm nez and the r-77 [aa-12]has a 60nm zone
the Russians say the R-77/RVV-AE has a 27nm zone
I guess when you put garbage into a sim, you get garbage out


the R-77/RVV-AE [aa-12]
http://www.roe.ru/cataloque/air_craft/aircraft_118-121.pdf
Max launch range, km:
against fighter-type targets 50km / 27nm
against bomber-type targets 80km
Fighter-type target hit probability 0.6-0.7

 

[meatshield]

Read this today. Interesting read.

Sixth Tanker for Australia? | Defense News | defensenews.com

 

[StevoJH]

What would be the lag time for the availability of a suitable new Airbus aircraft for modification if an order was to be placed in April?

Unless Airbus Military already had access to aircraft in the pipeline it could be a few years before a conversion could start?

 

[meatshield]

2nd hand aircraft maybe?

 

[StevoJH]

2nd hand aircraft maybe?

Unless it was "almost new" and previously owned/operated by a reputable company or government I very much doubt it.

ADF and Govt have been stung too badly from taking on second hand equipment recently.

Plus a second hand aircraft (depending on hours) might not have sufficient flight time left to last as long as required.

 

[ADMk2]

2nd hand aircraft maybe?

Airbus has 4 A330 airframes purchased by the USAF for the KC-X program that are virtually brand new (minus engines etc).

I suspect that a proposal to sell one or more of these to the RAAF factored heavily in this...

Especially given the initial force posture review recommendations included additional AAR capability for RAAF...

 

[Raven22]

What would be the lag time for the availability of a suitable new Airbus aircraft for modification if an order was to be placed in April?

Unless Airbus Military already had access to aircraft in the pipeline it could be a few years before a conversion could start?

Just buy one of the aircraft from the RAF order. With their money troubles, I'm sure the British government would be happy to push some expenditure further into the future.

If another aircraft is bought, hopefully they use it to replace the ridiculous Adagold aircraft doing the milk runs to the MEAO.

 

[John Newman]

Read this today. Interesting read.

Sixth Tanker for Australia? | Defense News | defensenews.com

If I'm reading this report right, sounds like a very smart business move by Airbus.

The two paragraph's that stood out are:

"Airbus Military was hopeful of winning an order for at least six aircraft for the Indian Air Force, but the Indian government’s requirement for early delivery means it may not be possible to set up an in-country conversion line in time.

"With Airbus’ other conversion facilities also fully booked in the near-term, Ureña said the sixth aircraft for Australia would provide continuity for the Brisbane facility until it was able to begin work on some of the Indian aircraft, should Airbus Military win the competition."


Airbus has its hands full with the UK, UAE and Saudi aircraft and is trying hard to get the Indian order, but India wants early delivery, and also Airbus is chasing orders from France and possibly others too

So what does Airbus do to win the big prize, eg India?

You say to the Australian Government "we will offer you a 6th at a good price (maybe cost or at a loss?), it provides much needed employment, and if we win the Indian order, QDS will do the conversion work, more continued employment and money in the form of taxes for the Government.

The money that QDS would make, the taxes paid to the government, the employment of people (who wouldn't be on the dole queue), could mean that at the end of the day a 6th could cost the government next to nothing!

Sounds like a win win for all concerned to me.

Question is, is the Goverment smart enough to see that?

 

[south]

They would do better to sort out the issues on the ones they have already given the RAAF first.

 

[Raven22]

This is why we should replace the chartered Airbus with a RAAF A330. This sort of thing is happening way too much.

3 March 2012
Air Sustainment Charter Service Delayed in Darwin
A Middle East Area of Operation (MEAO) Air Sustainment Charter service which departed Sydney on Tuesday 28 February was delayed as a result of a heavy landing in Darwin caused by weather and wind effect. No one was hurt in the incident.

The aircraft was due to fly approximately 115 ADF personnel to the MEAO and return with another group of 61 ADF members.

The return flight was delayed for 24 hours while a replacement aircraft was flown from the United Kingdom direct to the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

Any delay in getting our people home is regrettable. The replacement aircraft landed in Perth early this morning and all the passengers are returning to home locations via domestic commercial air.

The incident aircraft is currently being held in Darwin subject to a technical assessment by the aircraft operator and the Australian Transport Safety Bureau will conduct an investigation.

The Air Charter Service Contractor, Adagold, has consistently met and continues to meet its MEAO Air Sustainment contractual obligations to the full satisfaction of Defence.

 

[lopez]

Is the RAAF immune from such problems(genuine question not trying to be smart)?
Or is the process for an dealing with after an "incident" in the RAAF less of a muck around?

 

[ADMk2]

Just buy one of the aircraft from the RAF order. With their money troubles, I'm sure the British government would be happy to push some expenditure further into the future.

If another aircraft is bought, hopefully they use it to replace the ridiculous Adagold aircraft doing the milk runs to the MEAO.

They'd still need a lot of modification even if we bought an RAF tanker. Their's don't have boom refuelling capability, which is why their fleet appears to be overtaking the RAF's in development and delivery, that I have seen some complain about...

As to the Adagold flight, getting sick of the mix of Nando's chicken meals and cigarette smoke are you?

:lol2

 

[Raven22]

Is the RAAF immune from such problems(genuine question not trying to be smart)?
Or is the process for an dealing with after an "incident" in the RAAF less of a muck around?

The RAAF isn't immune, but it has three things going for it -

The first is that the aircraft are new. The Adagold A340 currently contracted is a POS. It breaks down all the time, half the seats don't work, the entertainment system doesn't work etc. I've personally been delayed twice by unserviceability of the aircraft. Believe me, after an eight month tour, a couple of days delay feels like an eternity. The RAAF aircraft, being new, wouldn't have this problem.

Secondly, the RAAF aircraft wouldn't be locked into a contract. Adagold only does exactly what their contract says, nothing else. If that doesn't fit in with peoples plans, then so be it, they don't care (and fair enough too). An RAAF aircraft wouldn't have that problem. It could fly anytime it was needed. Once a week, twice a week, delay a day, bring it forward a day - all would be possible. That would be a huge help around RIP time.

Thirdly, the RAAF has more than one aircraft. If the Adagold aircraft is broken, you have to wait for it to be fixed or, like in the current circumstance, have another aircraft flown out from Europe by the parent company. The RAAF wouldn't have that problem - if one of the aircraft breaks, they can simply fly out another one. You can imagine the impact a cancelled flight has on tight deployment schedules.

I'll include the below picture as a bonus reason why having an RAAF plane would be of benefit to combat soldiers returning from a long deployment:

Realistically, the current contracted solution is probably cheaper than using RAAF aircraft. But if you add in the added capability that would come with using RAAF aircraft, it would be worth it IMO.

As to the Adagold flight, getting sick of the mix of Nando's chicken meals and cigarette smoke are you?

From memory, one meal has the option of chicken and rice and beef and noodles, and the other meal has the option of chicken and noodles and beef and rice. Still better than Qantas.

 

[Andrew McL]

They would do better to sort out the issues on the ones they have already given the RAAF first.

The KC-30As are going really well, and should hit IOC by the end of the year. The boom is still some way off but we won't need that for IOC.

I agree we should have our own flag reg aircraft to transport troops to/from the MEAO, but to use a heavy landing in DRW as a reason is ridiculous. DRW has some pretty severe wx at this time of year and NO airline/operator is immune from such events. Rest assured the operator (HiFly) would have paid for the replacement aircraft to come out from Europe, and that the commonwealth is not out of pocket.

Re Adagold's contract - even though Adagold is just the broker,not the operator - there are incentives to go over and beyond the basic contract, and these have been exercised several times, e.g. during MTF swap outs. The aircraft is configured in a medium density leisure layout from it's days as a charter aircraft in Europe.

If there are performance issues either with IFE going u/s, or broken seats, or other issues, these are subject to penalty clauses in the contract.

Just to wrap this up, there has been some talk about a sixth KC-30, but the MEAO transport contract is more of an added benefit rather than a driving reason.

 

[Raven22]

I agree we should have our own flag reg aircraft to transport troops to/from the MEAO, but to use a heavy landing in DRW as a reason is ridiculous. DRW has some pretty severe wx at this time of year and NO airline/operator is immune from such events. Rest assured the operator (HiFly) would have paid for the replacement aircraft to come out from Europe, and that the commonwealth is not out of pocket.

Re Adagold's contract - even though Adagold is just the broker,not the operator - there are incentives to go over and beyond the basic contract, and these have been exercised several times, e.g. during MTF swap outs. The aircraft is configured in a medium density leisure layout from it's days as a charter aircraft in Europe.

If it was a one off fair enough. But this is far from the first flight that has been canned due to an unservicable aircraft. Its not even the first time the aircraft has become unservicable in Darwin during the last month. The fact that the Commonwealth is not out of pocket is pretty irrelevant when someones grand plan movements plan just went to custard. The knock on effect of a cancelled flight, particularly now in RIP season, is huge. My battle group had to change the entire RIP plan - for about 1400 people over a month, due a cancelled flight. Compared to Strategic Air who used to have the contract, Adagold is rubbish.

If there are performance issues either with IFE going u/s, or broken seats, or other issues, these are subject to penalty clauses in the contract.

There might be penalty clauses, but that doesn't help the poor sap stuck in a broken seat for 17 hours - and who'll probably be in the same broken seat for the flight back eight months later.

 

[ngatimozart]

I found this on a site I sometimes frequent. They are usually slack in updating their material so I have some concerns about the veracity of the material. However they have this story: Shenyang J-16 Silent Flanker Chinese Intermediate Stealth Fighter | Defence Aviation which is about the Chinese doing a F15SE Silent Eagle type mod to the Su 27 / J11 that they use. So considering the arguments that the uber mensch in APA have been using to denigrate the F35 purchase, would this in anyway cause them to change their position on the F35? Once the Chinese solve any problems there may be with the aircraft and get it to IOC then they'll be able to pump them out in possibly quite considerable numbers. Another question about the APA. Since they have difficulties with the F35 and the Shornets, I would presume that they would have difficulties with the F15SE and again presumeably just because.

 

[Andrew McL]

I found this on a site I sometimes frequent. They are usually slack in updating their material so I have some concerns about the veracity of the material. However they have this story: Shenyang J-16 Silent Flanker Chinese Intermediate Stealth Fighter | Defence Aviation which is about the Chinese doing a F15SE Silent Eagle type mod to the Su 27 / J11 that they use.

Don't know what this has to do with the RAAF, but I'm calling 'bull$hit' on this one!

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I found this on a site I sometimes frequent. They are usually slack in updating their material so I have some concerns about the veracity of the material. However they have this story: Shenyang J-16 Silent Flanker Chinese Intermediate Stealth Fighter | Defence Aviation which is about the Chinese doing a F15SE Silent Eagle type mod to the Su 27 / J11 that they use. So considering the arguments that the uber mensch in APA have been using to denigrate the F35 purchase, would this in anyway cause them to change their position on the F35? Once the Chinese solve any problems there may be with the aircraft and get it to IOC then they'll be able to pump them out in possibly quite considerable numbers. Another question about the APA. Since they have difficulties with the F35 and the Shornets, I would presume that they would have difficulties with the F15SE and again presumeably just because.

Mate this shouldn't be in the RAAF thread but rather the Chinese aircraft thread. That article linked has a picture of a highly modified Su-27 in primer. If legit it shows a short nose, square intake, canted tail Sushkat with the space between the engine's filled in. Lower RCS sure. "Doing a F-15SE" maybe in their marketting. But a stealth fighter it isn't.