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

[HurricaneDitka]

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?

I had totally forgotten about this, thanks for the reminder.

Why the interest in crowsnest? I thought the Aussies only ever planned to operate in a contested environment with Allied air cover (which would presumably include some sort of AEW).

 

[Volkodav]

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

I would even be tempted to go for Sierras instead of extra MRH90 for their special operations support, CSAR and guided weapons capabilities in addition to transport and assault abilities. They would also make a sweet supplement to the Romeos if deployed aboard surface combatants.

 

[t68]

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...

Cheers thanks for that, I had assumed that crowsnest was quite large that's why the UK are putting them in Merlin. If they fit into the Romeo's all the better.

 

[the road runner]

I would even be tempted to go for Sierras instead of extra MRH90 for their special operations support, CSAR and guided weapons capabilities in addition to transport and assault abilities. They would also make a sweet supplement to the Romeos if deployed aboard surface combatants.

I am split between Sierras and MRH90's as to what way to go. One thing is for sure,we could support either one with little difficulty. For spec op's support i agree the Sierras would be the way to go. I am curious as to how the the MRH-90 issues are being resolved. I spoke with a MRH90 pilot at the International fleet review and he swore that the MRH90 are a great capability to have.

As AD has said our chook force is pretty small.7 CH-47 being purchased to replace the 6(12 we use to have). Of note was how we deployed 2 Ch-47 to Afghanistan and one crashed,we were left with a 50% reduction in operational helicopters in Afghanistan. What would be the number of CH-47F desired ?
I always assumed 12 to 18 would be a pretty good fit for he ADF

 

[aussienscale]

I always assumed 12 to 18 would be a pretty good fit for he ADF

With pretty much some kind of military commitment on a continual basis, and lets face it this has become normal, the acquisition of the LHD's etc I would be happier with the upper band of that number, even push for low 20's, but dreaming I know

Cheers

 

[Raven22]

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?

I think you'll find the new White Paper will include an enhanced ship-to-shore capability for the LHDs. This will likely include an enhanced aviation capability of some sort. V22s will also likely be considered as part of this, due to their extended range and speed (particularly important for things like MEDIVAC). Personally I don't think V22s are a realistic outcome, more chinooks certainly are.

 

[John Fedup]

With pretty much some kind of military commitment on a continual basis, and lets face it this has become normal, the acquisition of the LHD's etc I would be happier with the upper band of that number, even push for low 20's, but dreaming I know

Cheers

Canada recently acquired 15 CH-47Fs so the upper band for Australia seems reasonable as Australia doesn't have a superpower ally on its doorstep.

 

[phreeky]

Having a respectable number of C-17s, C-130s and soon some C-27s (especially the C-27s) must surely have an impact on future CH-47 numbers. That's not to say they wouldn't make sense, those other aircraft aren't going to land on an LHD any time soon.

 

[barney41]

I think you'll find the new White Paper will include an enhanced ship-to-shore capability for the LHDs. This will likely include an enhanced aviation capability of some sort. V22s will also likely be considered as part of this, due to their extended range and speed (particularly important for things like MEDIVAC). Personally I don't think V22s are a realistic outcome, more chinooks certainly are.

I also recall reading how the Yanks appreciate how Osprey's extended range and speed has proved very useful for express delivery of urgently needed parts that would otherwise have impaired operations of the ARG.Osprey greatly expands the area that the ARG can effectively project force several times that possible with their previous helo, a capability that would come in handy for a LHD task force.

 

[Volkodav]

There was a Chinook flying over Robertson barracks today, used to seeing Tigers and even USMC Super Stallions and MV-22s when they are in town but its the first time I've seen a Chook.

 

[Magoo]

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...

Nooo, no more kit for the Romeo please! The Seahawk airframe is now maxxed out as it is.

I'd suggest something like a FireScout might be the more logical platform for any ship-borne AEW for the RAN.

V22s will also likely be considered as part of this...

I would give a V-22-like capability next to no chance of appearing in the next DWP. There may be more Chinooks though...

 

[StingrayOZ]

Nooo, no more kit for the Romeo please! The Seahawk airframe is now maxxed out as it is.

I'd suggest something like a FireScout might be the more logical platform for any ship-borne AEW for the RAN.

Has anyone done something like this with a UAV? Be handy not just for LHD's.

I would give a V-22-like capability next to no chance of appearing in the next DWP. There may be more Chinooks though...

Chinooks are what we need right now. However, the US has a swag of programs that VTOL but aren't traditional helicopters, much faster and longer ranged. I would guess another 8 or so Chinooks would be a useful buy, long term look closely at these other aircraft when they come on line.

 

[Volkodav]

Nooo, no more kit for the Romeo please! The Seahawk airframe is now maxxed out as it is.

I'd suggest something like a FireScout might be the more logical platform for any ship-borne AEW for the RAN.



I would give a V-22-like capability next to no chance of appearing in the next DWP. There may be more Chinooks though...

Would the Sierra be a suitable platform for Vigilance? Having been design for, amongst other missions, VERTREP, it should have a reasonable amount of space and weight available.

 

[StevoJH]

Or use MRH-90 instead. There are already 6 that are supposed to be Navy owned anyway.

 

[Magoo]

Would the Sierra be a suitable platform for Vigilance?

The Sierra is actually a Black Hawk airframe with Seahawk running gear - unlikely there.

Or use MRH-90 instead. There are already 6 that are supposed to be Navy owned anyway.

The Navy does not 'own' six MRHs, it draws six MRHs from the ADF's pool of 47 machines, and swaps them out when one comes up for maintenance. Not a likely proposition either.

It hasn't been done on a VUAS before that I'm aware of, but Northrop Grumman is looking to trial fit a miniaturised version of the Triton's surface search radar to the MQ-8C FireScout (Bell 407) - it wouldn't be a huge leap to fit an air capable radar - the back ends and LOS datalinks would be similar, although a suitable aperture/antenna would need to be found.

Perhaps CEA has a solution?

Re Chinooks, there was talk of retaining a few of our D models when the Fs finally arrive, although that depends on how knackered they are from their Afghan deployments. Word is they were fairly sparingly used compared to other forces, so may be good for a few years as training machines or for domestic/PNG/regional assistance type duties.

But I'd suggest aircrews rather than airframes is going to be the limfac on Army Chinook numbers anyway...

 

[Milne Bay]

Re Chinooks, there was talk of retaining a few of our D models when the Fs finally arrive, although that depends on how knackered they are from their Afghan deployments. Word is they were fairly sparingly used compared to other forces, so may be good for a few years as training machines or for domestic/PNG/regional assistance type duties.

But I'd suggest aircrews rather than airframes is going to be the limfac on Army Chinook numbers anyway...

Why is that?
Is the training for this being rationed, or are there simply not enough people applying for those positions ...... or something else?
MB

 

[Volkodav]

The Sierra is actually a Black Hawk airframe with Seahawk running gear - unlikely there.



The Navy does not 'own' six MRHs, it draws six MRHs from the ADF's pool of 47 machines, and swaps them out when one comes up for maintenance. Not a likely proposition either.

It hasn't been done on a VUAS before that I'm aware of, but Northrop Grumman is looking to trial fit a miniaturised version of the Triton's surface search radar to the MQ-8C FireScout (Bell 407) - it wouldn't be a huge leap to fit an air capable radar - the back ends and LOS datalinks would be similar, although a suitable aperture/antenna would need to be found.

Perhaps CEA has a solution?

Re Chinooks, there was talk of retaining a few of our D models when the Fs finally arrive, although that depends on how knackered they are from their Afghan deployments. Word is they were fairly sparingly used compared to other forces, so may be good for a few years as training machines or for domestic/PNG/regional assistance type duties.

But I'd suggest aircrews rather than airframes is going to be the limfac on Army Chinook numbers anyway...

I notice Army Aviation are advertising directly to the public now, drumming up interest and applications to join.

 

[StevoJH]

Re Chinooks, there was talk of retaining a few of our D models when the Fs finally arrive, although that depends on how knackered they are from their Afghan deployments. Word is they were fairly sparingly used compared to other forces, so may be good for a few years as training machines or for domestic/PNG/regional assistance type duties.

They could be upgraded to F standard as time goes on couldn't they? Or is there to much of a difference between the two standards?

I seem to recall other nations upgrading their earlier Chinook fleets to 'D' standard.

 

[Magoo]

They could be upgraded to F standard as time goes on couldn't they? Or is there to much of a difference between the two standards?

I seem to recall other nations upgrading their earlier Chinook fleets to 'D' standard.

The first few Fs were upgraded Ds but it was soon found to be cheaper to build them from scratch. The F has a whole new forward cab with dig avionics, uprated running gear, better cargo handling and other improvements...

A partial upgrade using the CAAC avionics and new blades may be possible, but may not be necessary - it depends on the economies of scale benefits of a common fleet vs two sub-fleets.

Why is that?

Going from a fleet of 5 gusting 6 Chinooks to 10-12 requires an infusion of crews, maintenance, admin personnel, industry support etc - these people don't grow on trees, can't be generated quickly, and may impact overall manning numbers.

 

[Raven22]

I would give a V-22-like capability next to no chance of appearing in the next DWP. There may be more Chinooks though...

A V-22 like capability will be considered for the White paper, but as you say I don't think that will lead to orders. The only way I can see it happening is if the F-35B thought bubble gets approved. You will then see a lot of linked purchases to try to turn the LHDs into pseudo carriers. Like everyone else I hope sanity prevails and it doesn't happen.