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

[ausklr76]

WOW changing topic maybe!!

I see a link on the Australian navy page that a RAAF C-17 has delivered the first of the new romeo seahawk's. From what I can see it only carried one airframe? Seeming the navy has ordered 24 of them is this really a cost effective way of delivery?

 

[John Fedup]

WOW changing topic maybe!!

I see a link on the Australian navy page that a RAAF C-17 has delivered the first of the new romeo seahawk's. From what I can see it only carried one airframe? Seeming the navy has ordered 24 of them is this really a cost effective way of delivery?

Renting an Antonov 124 might make more sense assuming more than one airframe was ready for shipment.

 

[John Fedup]

And this doesn't apply in the slightest to this situation. The Supers were bought partly to relieve the strain on the Hornets which have, do and will remain our primary air combat force. To allow them to reach their effectve life of type, without risking the capability failing on us.

Yet you want to deliberately run these aircraft into the ground and use up all remaining fatigue life on them? Yeah tremendous idea... Let's just pray 3,75 and 77 Sqn won't need the airframes anywhere else until F-35 arrives, because their remaining life has been used up instead of using a more suitable asset t do the same (only better) job?

Tremendous planning there old boy! A truly masterful way of managing risk...

Canada's RCAF has no choice. We are stuck using classic Hornets. With the mission possibly lasting years, our fleet could be worn out before any replacement
Fighter gets selected let alone ordered.

 

[pkcasimir]

[I see a link on the Australian navy page that a RAAF C-17 has delivered the first of the new romeo seahawk's. From what I can see it only carried one airframe? Seeming the navy has ordered 24 of them is this really a cost effective way of delivery?[/QUOTE]

Since the C-17 can carry two MH-60Rs at a time you have to wonder why the RAAF only airlifted one.

 

[RobWilliams]

I doubt they only lifted the single airframe and the rest of the cargo bay was unoccupied.

 

[rjtjrt]

As well as the first Romeo, i understand they bought a non flying aiframe over that is to be used for training.

 

[Magoo]

As well as the first Romeo, i understand they bought a non flying aiframe over that is to be used for training.

Correct, the C-17 carried the first Romeo and a BRomeo as well.

As for the Super vs Classic debate, *CLICK*

 

[ADMk2]

Canada's RCAF has no choice. We are stuck using classic Hornets. With the mission possibly lasting years, our fleet could be worn out before any replacement
Fighter gets selected let alone ordered.

Canada has plenty of choice, just as Australia does. You could split your future fleet between F-35A and Super Hornet / Growler as we seem to be doing, you could forgoe F-35A entirely or order it straight up.

What you don't have are politicians ready or willing to make a decision. Our situations aren't the same at all...

 

[Air Force Brat]

Canada's RCAF has no choice. We are stuck using classic Hornets. With the mission possibly lasting years, our fleet could be worn out before any replacement
Fighter gets selected let alone ordered.

Right, and the classic Hornet is still a very potent/effective platform in the right hands, if it has been well maintained and upgraded, it will do what it was designed to do. While it is apparent that most posters do not agree with t68, his logic is still sound, and that logic is to conserve your most valuable resources for the greatest threat.....kinda like wearing your old Levi's for work, and saving your new Levi's for church on Sunday.

The SHornets will no doubt offer the most seamless interface with the other users however, and in joint ops that would be the main consideration, all have made good points, but no need to feel badly about your own Hornets, and hopefully folks will order up the F-35 when the cost comes down, and have a truly revolutionary aircraft, that will serve well into the future.

 

[John Fedup]

Canada has plenty of choice, just as Australia does. You could split your future fleet between F-35A and Super Hornet / Growler as we seem to be doing, you could forgoe F-35A entirely or order it straight up.

What you don't have are politicians ready or willing to make a decision. Our situations aren't the same at all...

It is unlikely the Harper government will survive the fall 2015 election. By the time Turdeau Jr. (my preferred spelling) takes office and gets around to defence matters, the Superhornet production line will be closed. He will not be able to backtrack on his anti F-35 rant so we will end up who knows what POS.

 

[ADMk2]

Right, and the classic Hornet is still a very potent/effective platform in the right hands, if it has been well maintained and upgraded, it will do what it was designed to do. While it is apparent that most posters do not agree with t68, his logic is still sound, and that logic is to conserve your most valuable resources for the greatest threat.....kinda like wearing your old Levi's for work, and saving your new Levi's for church on Sunday.

The SHornets will no doubt offer the most seamless interface with the other users however, and in joint ops that would be the main consideration, all have made good points, but no need to feel badly about your own Hornets, and hopefully folks will order up the F-35 when the cost comes down, and have a truly revolutionary aircraft, that will serve well into the future.

He isn't being logical in the slightest. RAAF is directed by Government to maintain 4 fighter squadrons, not run ageing airframes into the ground until they are un-flyable. How sustainable is barely having enough aircraft to fill four fighter squadrons and then add the circumstance where you are rapidly (ie: within months, rather than years) using up your aircraft to meet some bizarre notion of 'value for money' (as if we somehow haven't got value for money already in over 25 years of operations from the fleet)? Not very I shouldn't think...

The Hornet Upgrade Program Phase 2.3 ( I think?) is the 'blending and patching' program that along with RAAF's regular maintainenance program will see the Hornet's meet their operational requirements AND their life of type as planned. Any deployment of these aircraft will change that planning and almost inevitably require the spending of significant sums to keep these aircraft in the air. Contrary to some quite astonishingly naive belief here, they won't be 'flown til they are life expired'. What sort of risk management planning would that be? Atrocious, that is what.

Furthermore his 'logic' isn't about 'conserving' our best forces, but some weird belief that we aren't getting money's worth out of a 25 year old fighter fleet if we don't send them on combat ops right now, rather than conserving their airframe life to allow them to perform their primary role of providing our primary air combat aircraft until replaced by F-35A.

Super Hornet was primarily purchased to boost our air combat capability and ease the load placed on the Classic Hornets, hence it's description as the 'bridging air combat capability'. It is the bridge between the Classics reaching LoT and the future fighter. It is the very aircraft Government and RAAF MEANT to do these deployments...

That doesn't mean the Hornets are 'wrapped in cotton wool' or any other such nonsense. It means they will be used operationally, prudently as necessary. Sending them to Iraq isn't 'necessary'. The Super Hornets are the better option tactically and sending them will not potentially cause force wide repercussions.

 

[Volkodav]

It was the same when we were attempting to manage the remaining life of the F-111 fleet, the newer more versatile Hornets were used for operational deployments while the F-111 stayed home. I am happy to be corrected if I have it the wrong way about but to me if you have a life extended platform you need to last until, its already planned but delayed, replacement arrives and another much newer platform with over a decade of planned life left before you need to worry about life extension, upgrade or replacement. Basically the newer more versatile platform gives you more options and more wriggle room.

 

[t68]

It is unlikely the Harper government will survive the fall 2015 election. By the time Turdeau Jr. (my preferred spelling) takes office and gets around to defence matters, the Superhornet production line will be closed. He will not be able to backtrack on his anti F-35 rant so we will end up who knows what POS.

If that is truly the case looks like tiffy for you unless you want French Rafale, SAAB Gripen might be another to look at, but then he might just see the light and order JSF

 

[John Fedup]

If that is truly the case looks like tiffy for you unless you want French Rafale, SAAB Gripen might be another to look at, but then he might just see the light and order JSF

Junior might even consider the New Zealand solution, no fast jets. I am sure he could lure the apathetic Canadian electorate to support this with all sorts of BS social benefits.

 

[HurricaneDitka]

With what appears to be an imminent Japanese MV-22 order, I was wondering if there is any chance that Australia would consider getting some MV-22s to fly off their nifty new amphibious assault ships, or are they just too expensive?

 

[the road runner]

With what appears to be an imminent Japanese MV-22 order, I was wondering if there is any chance that Australia would consider getting some MV-22s to fly off their nifty new amphibious assault ships, or are they just too expensive?

The ADF could do with another couple of Squadrons of helos
If the money was available id like to see more chooks,seahawks and NH-90!
Would be a waste of dollars,resources and manpower IMHO to introduce MV-22's

 

[ADMk2]

With what appears to be an imminent Japanese MV-22 order, I was wondering if there is any chance that Australia would consider getting some MV-22s to fly off their nifty new amphibious assault ships, or are they just too expensive?

Too expensive and too limited in their load-carrying capability. We desperately need more Chinooks and are flat out getting them, so the chance of Osprey I think is rather limited...

 

[t68]

With what appears to be an imminent Japanese MV-22 order, I was wondering if there is any chance that Australia would consider getting some MV-22s to fly off their nifty new amphibious assault ships, or are they just too expensive?

Our LHD only have 1 spot each for V-22,only way I can see that happening if the osprey gets the AEW kit and a number of F35B

Wonder if crowsnest would fit onto a NFH-90?

 

[ADMk2]

Our LHD only have 1 spot each for V-22,only way I can see that happening if the osprey gets the AEW kit and a number of F35B

Wonder if crowsnest would fit onto a NFH-90?

Possibly, though for us it might be more suited to an MH-60R. Lockheed Martin has a bit to do with them and the Vigilance pods they are bidding for Crowsnest so there is a certain synergy there I expect...

 

[Volkodav]

Junior might even consider the New Zealand solution, no fast jets. I am sure he could lure the apathetic Canadian electorate to support this with all sorts of BS social benefits.

I was going to suggest that tongue in cheek but on reflection decided not to in case it actually happened.