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

[Jezza]

Airbus Military offers Canberra a sixth A330 MRTT

By: Greg Waldron Singapore

Source:

Airbus Military has offered Australia a sixth A330 multi-role tanker transport (MRTT) aircraft, giving Canberra until mid-2012 to make a decision.

The unsolicited offer involves an aircraft, MSN 871, that was previously involved in the US Air Force's KC-X tanker competition, said Airbus in an email to Flightglobal. After years of controversy, the Boeing 767-based KC-46A emerged as the ultimate winner of the KC-X competition in 2011.

Industrial benefits that would accrue to Australia appear to play a significant part in Airbus's offer.

"Allocating conversion works related to the RAAF's [Royal Australian Air Force's] sixth MRTT in Australia would imply one additional year of full working capability, including altogether 200 high skilled staff in the Brisbane conversion centre," said Airbus Military.

Is there any traction on this offer. Seems like a bargain.

 

[the road runner]

Is there any traction on this offer. Seems like a bargain.

Have a look at Page 206 post number 3085 and have a read mate ,the guys were talking about this a few weeks ago.Also your link dose not seem to be working.

 

[ASSAIL]

Laar

Is there, has there ever been an RAAF requirement for a fixed wing Light Attack, Armed Reconnaissance aircraft. Please excuse my ignorance, I have gills.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Is there, has there ever been an RAAF requirement for a fixed wing Light Attack, Armed Reconnaissance aircraft. Please excuse my ignorance, I have gills.

Since WWII the only RAAF requirement for similar was the FAC training aircraft. The RAAF did buy the Cessna 180 on behalf of the Army for the set up of 16 Squadron which became the Army Aviation Corps. The Army then brought the PC-6 Turbo Porter (very much an armed recce aircraft) in the mid 60s for the LARA role (which included utility transport) and CAC designed a replacement in the mid 70s called the LMS [Light Military Transport]. Which despite the name was more of a mini OV-10 than a transport plane. But it came to nought without Govt. funding and a co-production deal with Singapore fell over. The Porters were replaced by Nomads in the mid 90s in a terrible decision because AIR 87 was just around the corner...

 

[ASSAIL]

Thanks AG. The question was prompted by the discussion about US COIN AT 6B and A 29B Super Tucano in the weapons section
I assumed that the Tiger had somehow morphed into that role in our current inventory but without the endurance.
Cheers

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Thanks AG. The question was prompted by the discussion about US COIN AT 6B and A 29B Super Tucano in the weapons section
I assumed that the Tiger had somehow morphed into that role in our current inventory but without the endurance.
Cheers

The Tiger has taken over the Army's armed recce role because the original fixed wing aircraft doing it have been removed from service. Also with their advanced comms systems and sensors they are far more effective if unable to stay in the air with far less fuel as say a Turbo Porter.

The US LAS program is definitely approaching this role from the direction of a FAC aircraft as opposed to the Army’s direction. The difference is pretty indistinguishable these days but back in the day was a difference of tasking. FAC aircraft supported air strikes while Army recce aircraft supported the land formation commander’s battlespace appreciation. The two would very often meet and are now pretty much one and the same. Except a FAC aircraft is equipped to talk fast jets onto targets. Though many armed recce helos are flying with FACs onboard and some FAC missions equipped with a LARA type aircraft might never need outside help in dealing with their targets.

The draft SoR for the new ADF pilot training system has a requirement for 6-8 new FAC training aircraft. Because of contemporary needs something with advanced sensors and networked comms like the AT-6B and A-29B would be required for this role. Since these aircraft are unlike most advanced trainers kitted out for combat survivability would make the FAC training aircraft operationally deployable. I’m sure 4 Sqn would dearly like to get their hands on a LARA type aircraft.

 

[ASSAIL]

This discussion takes me back to the O 2 Cessna Skymaster spotters during NGS ops in Vietnam (1970). IIRC known as "Birddogs".
Had a friend in Broome who used one as his personal taxi and loved it.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

This discussion takes me back to the O 2 Cessna Skymaster spotters during NGS ops in Vietnam (1970). IIRC known as "Birddogs".
Had a friend in Broome who used one as his personal taxi and loved it.

Army grabbed a couple of O-1s from the Yanks in VietNam to supplant the 180s before the Porters were available and even built one from spare parts and written off airframes. The later is in the Museum of Army Flying at Oakey. Quite a few USAF IO-1s and O-2s were Australian manned, including Aussie Kiwi legend Vance Drummond. The Rhodesian Air Force brought French built O-2s as Lynxes and used them as LARA platforms in their Bush War. Highly effective in COIN ops and very low cost to fly compared to helos and high performance aircraft.

An eye in the sky is always worthwhile for most military units. Nowadays you can get it from UAVs, helos and a range of manned ISR platforms. Those that combine ISR capabilities with strike and the ability to make decisions on the spot (manned) are by far the most useful. LARA types are all about dialling down cost to match capability need. Much like the Rhodesian Cessna “Lynx” aka O-2 Skymaster.

Biography - Vance Drummond - Australian Dictionary of Biography

 

[MickB]

There has been much discussion on the RAN thread about the RAAF's ability or lack of it to maintain support for an amphibious landing for an extended period.

Could a squadron or two of LARAs releave some of this pressure.

The RAAF could provide a surge capasity during the initial landing. A high priority would then be the capture or building of a basic airstrip. The LARA would then take over close support from the JSF. These would be able to spend more time on station and cost less to operate than the ARH.

This would only work against opposition with limited air defense, perhaps taken out by initial strikes by JSF or S/Hornet.

 

[Raven22]

There has been much discussion on the RAN thread about the RAAF's ability or lack of it to maintain support for an amphibious landing for an extended period.

Could a squadron or two of LARAs releave some of this pressure.

The RAAF could provide a surge capasity during the initial landing. A high priority would then be the capture or building of a basic airstrip. The LARA would then take over close support from the JSF. These would be able to spend more time on station and cost less to operate than the ARH.

This would only work against opposition with limited air defense, perhaps taken out by initial strikes by JSF or S/Hornet.

I don't think it is a good idea. The pot of money for the ADF is only so big. We can't be good at everything. We have to pick those things we NEED to be able to well and concentrate on those. Spending money for a capability of such narrow utility won't help matters.

 

[south]

I guess it would make sense if you though that there was something that Abrams, Arty, Mortars, NGF Support, Javelin and Tiger couldn't handle.

If you have a bigger target than what the above can handle the problem then becomes what type of weapons are these aircraft then going to carry ( anything more than 2x500lbs they are going to struggle, plus you have to put those bombs on the beachhead somewhere safe to store them). How are you going to integrate this with all of the above forces, how is it going to contribute without getting in the way etc.

 

[MickB]

I guess it would make sense if you though that there was something that Abrams, Arty, Mortars, NGF Support, Javelin and Tiger couldn't handle.

If these could solve every problem why do we have any close support aircraft at all.

 

[MickB]

I don't think it is a good idea. The pot of money for the ADF is only so big. We can't be good at everything. We have to pick those things we NEED to be able to well and concentrate on those. Spending money for a capability of such narrow utility won't help matters.

If you look at every conflict that Australia has been involved with for the past 80 years (with the possable exception of Korea), a light strike aircraft would have been an extremely useful capability to have

The same could be said of any forseeable future conflicts.

The RAAF's jet fighters and the F111 have been valuable deterants but how about funding a aircraft that will actually see some use, that would have supported our soldiers then and can support our soldiers now.

A small reduction in the JSF buy will cover the cost of purchase.

The greatly reduced cost per flying hour over the JSF will go a long way to cover any additional aircrew requirments.

 

[Raven22]

If you look at every conflict that Australia has been involved with for the past 80 years (with the possable exception of Korea), a light strike aircraft would have been an extremely useful capability to have

The same could be said of any forseeable future conflicts.

The RAAF's jet fighters and the F111 have been valuable deterants but how about funding a aircraft that will actually see some use, that would have supported our soldiers then and can support our soldiers now.

A small reduction in the JSF buy will cover the cost of purchase.

The greatly reduced cost per flying hour over the JSF will go a long way to cover any additional aircrew requirments.

There are lots of capabilities out there that would be handy to have. You could make the argument that, say, AC-130s would have been very handy to have in recent conflicts. That doesn't necessarily mean we should have bought them. It's a disease I think that affects the whole ADF, where we try to be the best at everything, or have a capability in every area. We seem to want to be a 'full service' military, but realistically we aren't big enough to be so. It leads to tokenism, where we have a capability in every category, but not enough numbers to actually make a difference on the battlefield. I'd rather we concentrate our resources on the things we know that we need, instead of spreading them everything we could possibly want.

 

[Todjaeger]

If you look at every conflict that Australia has been involved with for the past 80 years (with the possable exception of Korea), a light strike aircraft would have been an extremely useful capability to have

The same could be said of any forseeable future conflicts.

The RAAF's jet fighters and the F111 have been valuable deterants but how about funding a aircraft that will actually see some use, that would have supported our soldiers then and can support our soldiers now.

A small reduction in the JSF buy will cover the cost of purchase.

The greatly reduced cost per flying hour over the JSF will go a long way to cover any additional aircrew requirments.

Yes, it would be nice for the RAAF or just ADF have some sort of like strike capability. However, as Raven22 pointed out, the ADF only has so much money to go around. Therefore, purchasing a light strike capability which is only of limited use in a number of situations becomes questionable. It would likely be far better to spend more and purchase a higher end system which can perform light strike missions when required, but are also useful in high risk/tempo ops as well.

Having the RAAF spend money of establishing a light strike aircraft capability would be PBS IMO if the ADF finds itself in a situation where it cannot either gain sufficient dominance of the air to allow the light aircraft to operate safely, or have a base within range to operate from.

-Cheers

 

[MickB]

Todjaeger, I would agree with you wholeheartedly if the government of the day would deploy these high end assets in support of our soldiers. But as history has shown this is not the case.

It is all very well telling a soldier that the S/Hornet or JSF can perform these strike duties when he's in Afganistan and there parked at Amberly.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Todjaeger, I would agree with you wholeheartedly if the government of the day would deploy these high end assets in support of our soldiers. But as history has shown this is not the case.

actually , we don't need to buy them because we operate in a collaborative environment. eg the US has asked Aust for specific capabilities that they don't enjoy in theatre - they reciprocate in kind.

aust does not have the critical mass to emulate a major power, so we take the opportunity to take advantage of military capability that larger partners can provide

It is all very well telling a soldier that the S/Hornet or JSF can perform these strike duties when he's in Afganistan and there parked at Amberly.

they're not parked at amberley. australia can call up B1's, B52's, B2's and F-15's to provide CAS at short notice ...... missions are planned around CAS within short window timeframes - and take into account partner CAS which is there for a reason

we are not a self contained 7th fleet, we're not PACOM, we fight with partners.

expecting us to provide our own support in a coalition environment where partners assist already would kill the sustainment budget - which as it is - is causing the ADF to bleed. You want us to spend more and kill future capability further?

 

[Raven22]

Todjaeger, I would agree with you wholeheartedly if the government of the day would deploy these high end assets in support of our soldiers. But as history has shown this is not the case.

It is all very well telling a soldier that the S/Hornet or JSF can perform these strike duties when he's in Afganistan and there parked at Amberly.

You're also making the assumption that a light attack aircraft would be deployed. There's lots of things in the armoury here in Australia that would be useful in Afghan that haven't been deployed, so I don't necessarily know why a light attack aircraft would be any different. Luckily that is the nature of coalition warfare - having A-10s and B-1Bs in support is at least as welcome as our own Hornets would be.

 

[ADMk2]

I guess it would make sense if you though that there was something that Abrams, Arty, Mortars, NGF Support, Javelin and Tiger couldn't handle.

If you have a bigger target than what the above can handle the problem then becomes what type of weapons are these aircraft then going to carry ( anything more than 2x500lbs they are going to struggle, plus you have to put those bombs on the beachhead somewhere safe to store them). How are you going to integrate this with all of the above forces, how is it going to contribute without getting in the way etc.

Wrong thread for it, but if we've got this money spare, then a guided rocket artillery system would be far more use IMHO for amphibious operations, than a LARA or a jet CAS aircraft, provided one can figure out how to operate it from a ship...

If we need to suppress a significant land based maneuver force in a littoral environment to facilitate our forces landing, than the Tigers and limited NGS capability we are currently planning et al aren't going to be much use.

RAAF probably won't be close enough to provide persistence and a LARA is going to be worse than useless in such a role and F-35B is completely out of the equation...

 

[MickB]

Raven 22, Todjager, GF0012, Point taken. Thanks for taking the time to explain rather than dismissing me out of hand.