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

[Todjaeger]

Using the V-22 as a lifter or assault transport is pretty daft and gawd knows how the USMC got away with it. But for everyone else the V-22 does provide a pretty impressive capability for supporting SOF and CSAR activities. Or if so fitted as a shipboard ASW/ASuW capability. The one big plank against it for SOF support is the ability to transport a SOV. The new GD SOV however fixes this blank which is cold comfort for SOF that have equipped with Supacats. But in a few years when the fleet of Supacats can be retired to guarding gates then the V-22, Flyer combo will be transformative to SOF infil, exfil.

One thing which I have had no luck with is finding out the internal cargo bay dimensions for the CH-47 and CH-53. I am interested in finding out how well the GD Growler vehicle would fit into either of those helicopters.

Getting a little away from the RAAF, but talking about lift for the ADF generally, I have often wondered how well something like the CH-53E/K Super Stallion would work. Not sure though whether Choules or the LHD's could handle the helicopter footprint or deckweight though.

-Cheers

 

[ADMk2]

One thing which I have had no luck with is finding out the internal cargo bay dimensions for the CH-47 and CH-53. I am interested in finding out how well the GD Growler vehicle would fit into either of those helicopters.

Getting a little away from the RAAF, but talking about lift for the ADF generally, I have often wondered how well something like the CH-53E/K Super Stallion would work. Not sure though whether Choules or the LHD's could handle the helicopter footprint or deckweight though.

-Cheers

CH-53? I'd be happy just to get a decent number of Chooks... 7 is nowhere near enough.

 

[StingrayOZ]

CH-53? I'd be happy just to get a decent number of Chooks... 7 is nowhere near enough.

Agreed. Really stands out as a area we are short in. We should really double it. Given they will only see more service when the Lhds are online and in a region where many islands don't even have an air field. Csar and soa as well as the heavy lift. I would like to think we could wait until block 2, but we may need more earlier.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

CH-53? I'd be happy just to get a decent number of Chooks... 7 is nowhere near enough.

7 is enough for logistic support. If you want to do SOF support and logistic support at the same time then you need more. Or 7 H-47s and 7 V-22s. Which would be a more capable force as the V-22s have so much longer reach than the H-47s.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Hopefully Wookie is lurking...

He was involved with trying to come up with mobility solutions for Osprey and I do remember him tearing his hair out at the lack of load standards for the platform, we had long and fractious discussions about those problems

Although this was 2007'ish the internal dimensions of the platform haven't changed so I assume the standardisation issues are still present

Admittedly this was in the context of usage by specfor (and poss MEU) but he wasn't a happy camper.

Its another example of a platform pet rock being forced through the pipeline when all the initial data is yelling that its less of a good idea even if its not an outright bad idea. ie pushed through by stars and congressmen/women at the expense of an actual requirement (at the time)

anyway, its here to stay, so its all a moot point now

 

[Volkodav]

Hopefully Wookie is lurking...

He was involved with trying to come up with mobility solutions for Osprey and I do remember him tearing his hair out at the lack of load standards for the platform, we had long and fractious discussions about those problems

Although this was 2007'ish the internal dimensions of the platform haven't changed so I assume the standardisation issues are still present

Admittedly this was in the context of usage by specfor (and poss MEU) but he wasn't a happy camper.

Its another example of a platform pet rock being forced through the pipeline when all the initial data is yelling that its less of a good idea even if its not an outright bad idea. ie pushed through by stars and congressmen/women at the expense of an actual requirement (at the time)

anyway, its here to stay, so its all a moot point now

It actually makes you wonder why a larger cargo volume wasn't specified for the purposes of standardisation. It was a clean sheet design so why opt for the dimensions they did?

looking at it logically if they decided there was a requirement to move equipment X then size it accordingly if there was no requirement to do so then drop its size to the minimum it needed to be to do its primary job, i.e. replace the CH-46, for a smaller platform with a smaller foot print, probably closer to the Bell V-280 Valour.

 

[gf0012-aust]

It actually makes you wonder why a larger cargo volume wasn't specified for the purposes of standardisation. It was a clean sheet design so why opt for the dimensions they did?

looking at it logically if they decided there was a requirement to move equipment X then size it accordingly if there was no requirement to do so then drop its size to the minimum it needed to be to do its primary job, i.e. replace the CH-46, for a smaller platform with a smaller foot print, probably closer to the Bell V-280 Valour.

well, sometimes programs "turn good" - eg we were 5 days away from Bushmaster getting completely cancelled when it was decided that protecting the seat from a disgruntled electorate was more important - so the prog got a Lazarus... we were already cancelling orders from suppliers when that turn around happened.

In the case of V-22, dimensions are dimensions, and that's never changed. so its become the poster child for force fitting a platform into a capability that didn't fit well in the first place.

At least Bushmaster complied with defined reqs, although I suspect Hawkei will be the Aust armies version of the V-22 prog

 

[Volkodav]

well, sometimes programs "turn good" - eg we were 5 days away from Bushmaster getting completely cancelled when it was decided that protecting the seat from a disgruntled electorate was more important - so the prog got a Lazarus... we were already cancelling orders from suppliers when that turn around happened.

In the case of V-22, dimensions are dimensions, and that's never changed. so its become the poster child for force fitting a platform into a capability that didn't fit well in the first place.

At least Bushmaster complied with defined reqs, although I suspect Hawkei will be the Aust armies version of the V-22 prog

Wrong thread but Hawkei gives me the sh!ts, we had Project mulgara back in the mid 90s and my then unit was meant to be involved with a second Squadron being formed to conduct trials, there were dune buggies, modified utes (Holden / Isuzu with composite mine protection underneath and even HUMVEEs in the mix. Interestingly the HUMVEE was seen as unsuitable as it was too wide and would be more likely to stake tires on bush track. I was personally a fan of the VBL although I don't remember if it was offered.

Cancelled in 1996 and now 17 years latter here we go again!

 

[Abraham Gubler]

It actually makes you wonder why a larger cargo volume wasn't specified for the purposes of standardisation. It was a clean sheet design so why opt for the dimensions they did?

The principal problem with the V-22 was that the cargo volume was too big for the size of the rotors. The latter being size limited by the need to fit onto the LHD. If the V-22 had a smaller fuselage and payload closer to the previous XV-15 it would never have had the problems it had in development.

looking at it logically if they decided there was a requirement to move equipment X then size it accordingly if there was no requirement to do so then drop its size to the minimum it needed to be to do its primary job, i.e. replace the CH-46, for a smaller platform with a smaller foot print, probably closer to the Bell V-280 Valour.

The Marines didn’t have a problem with the V-22’s bay because at the time it could lift their M151 jeeps. Its only later when these were all replaced by Hummers and mine protected vehicles were shown to be required that it went off the rails. However the circle has been completed with the design and ordering of the GD Flyer for US SOCOM. Which is an impressive SOV with mine protection and full armour options that can fit in the V-22.

With this vehicle the V-22 can take care of the SOF infil exfil role as well as be a capable CSAR platform. With its long range and high speed and VTOL capability it’s an idea infil exil platform. Though you can (and people do) make a good argument that a C-27J can infil SOF in most places where there might not be suitable landing fields via paradrop. Though of course it can’t pick them up in reverse.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Wrong thread but Hawkei gives me the sh!ts, we had Project mulgara back in the mid 90s and my then unit was meant to be involved with a second Squadron being formed to conduct trials, there were dune buggies, modified utes (Holden / Isuzu with composite mine protection underneath and even HUMVEEs in the mix. Interestingly the HUMVEE was seen as unsuitable as it was too wide and would be more likely to stake tires on bush track. I was personally a fan of the VBL although I don't remember if it was offered.

Cancelled in 1996 and now 17 years latter here we go again!

Heah the Rhodesians were converting Unimog and Mercedes chassis into IMV and RSVs in bus depots by the hundreds for peanuts 35 years ago. Why did we need to develop a spaceship for a crop duster role.

 

[Volkodav]

Why did we need to develop a spaceship for a crop duster role.

Stuffed if I know, seriously its not hard which is the most frustrating part of it, there are so many MOTS options out there that Australia could have license produced at minimal cost.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Heah the Rhodesians were converting Unimog and Mercedes chassis into IMV and RSVs in bus depots by the hundreds for peanuts 35 years ago. Why did we need to develop a spaceship for a crop duster role.

When I worked on Taipan with JRA they were buying in the Mogs complete with cabs, removing the cabs and then not even bothering to try and onsell them - ridiculous wastage

The cabs must have been worth $7-8k each just by themselves - let alone the fitouts - and we went through 3 dozen when I was there.

 

[Volkodav]

When I worked on Taipan with JRA they were buying in the Mogs complete with cabs, removing the cabs and then not even bothering to try and onsell them - ridiculous wastage

The cabs must have been worth $7-8k each just by themselves - let alone the fitouts - and we went through 3 dozen when I was there.

You should have seen how HSV used to work, they used to receive show room ready Commodore Executives and Berlinas, strip them down to the body in white and rebuild them in a set up that looked more like an over sized workshop than a factory. Alll the bits removed were binned.

 

[gf0012-aust]

You should have seen how HSV used to work, they used to receive show room ready Commodore Executives and Berlinas, strip them down to the body in white and rebuild them in a set up that looked more like an over sized workshop than a factory. Alll the bits removed were binned.

GMH armoured vehicle work (eg on the PM's vehicle) was just embarassing - esp when you look at how Mercedes build their armoured vehicles - or even BMW's special builds.

you can see the difference in attention to detail, build philosophy, engineering care/attention etc....

pay peanuts - get monkeys

 

[hairyman]

What is the cost of the P8A aircraft? We have 8 on order to replace 18 Orions. How many P8A's will we end up with? And if they are to be used for land attack as well as maritime duties, should'nt we have many more of them?

 

[ADMk2]

What is the cost of the P8A aircraft? We have 8 on order to replace 18 Orions. How many P8A's will we end up with? And if they are to be used for land attack as well as maritime duties, should'nt we have many more of them?

The amount of P-8A's to be purchased has been reviewed. RAAF are looking to follow the USN BAMS model of 2 manned aircraft : 1 un-manned aircraft, so the likely result will be 12 P-8A's and 6 Global Hawk / Triton UAS systems to replace the AP-3C based capability we currently have.

That ratio hasn't been formally announced but the Chief of RAAF has discussed it openly so I suspect it will happen.

 

[Todjaeger]

The amount of P-8A's to be purchased has been reviewed. RAAF are looking to follow the USN BAMS model of 2 manned aircraft : 1 un-manned aircraft, so the likely result will be 12 P-8A's and 6 Global Hawk / Triton UAS systems to replace the AP-3C based capability we currently have.

That ratio hasn't been formally announced but the Chief of RAAF has discussed it openly so I suspect it will happen.

The other part to that, the cost per P-8A Poseidon remains to be seen. I had heard a figure of ~USD$200 mil. per aircraft, but that figure is several years old now so is likely not quite so accurate.

-Cheers

 

[colay]

The 8 P-8i aircraft India purchased reportedly totalled more than US$2.1B so is a handy cost benchmark.

 

[John Newman]

What is the cost of the P8A aircraft? We have 8 on order to replace 18 Orions. How many P8A's will we end up with? And if they are to be used for land attack as well as maritime duties, should'nt we have many more of them?

Just to add to what AD and Tod have said, in a couple of recent issues of Australian Aviation mag (October and November) there were articles on both the Triton and the P-8A.

The Chief of Air Force, Geoff Brown, was interviewed and said they were looking at the mix and as AD said, they are looking at a 2-1 ratio between the two types, 12 P-8A's and 6 Tritons.

In the article, Brown also said that the P-8A's were due to go to Government for second pass approval early next year, but he wasn't sure if they will go ahead with the initial eight with an option for the extra airframes, or change the request for 12, he did say, 'in an ideal world I'd like to go with a larger number straight up'.

On the cost side, as Tod said around $200m, Wiki for example has the FY13 unit cost as $201.4m and it also shows a price of $275.7m (which includes the R & D costs). The Indian P-8I's were reported to have cost around $220m each.

 

[gf0012-aust]

The 8 P-8i aircraft India purchased reportedly totalled more than US$2.1B so is a handy cost benchmark.

Nope, they have a different fitout