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

[Raven22]

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

Some of the constraints on growing chinook numbers at the present/recent past is that army aviation is still bringing into service the ARH and MRH, at the same time as preparing for the transition to the CH-47F, and, until recently, preparing and deploying two chinooks for ops in afghan. Trying to do all that AND grow numbers was a bridge too far (which is what the army told government). Now that those pressures are easing, more chinooks are definitely a possibility (probability?)

The amphibious capability the governement has tasked the ADF to maintain is simply unsustainable without more helos.

 

[rjtjrt]

Some of the constraints on growing chinook numbers at the present/recent past is that army aviation is still bringing into service the ARH and MRH, at the same time as preparing for the transition to the CH-47F, and, until recently, preparing and deploying two chinooks for ops in afghan. Trying to do all that AND grow numbers was a bridge too far (which is what the army told government). Now that those pressures are easing, more chinooks are definitely a possibility (probability?)

The amphibious capability the governement has tasked the ADF to maintain is simply unsustainable without more helos.

The problem is Chinook sustainment budget looks very big once others cast their eyes on it.
Given past history, it seems that Army overall is not as supportive of anything other than a bare minimum fleet of Chinook. Since they were transferred from RAAF, army has sold all off, realised that was a mistake, and bought a very limited capability back. This is probably fair enough in an organisation with the most limited budget of the 3 services, and presumably non aviation parts of army enviously eying off the budget others have whilst seeing what they perceive as eye watering costs of heavy helo sustainment. They appear to have been able in past to convince senior officers that the money can be better spent on their competing bid for new or increased capability.
This will not change. In peacetime, army aviation have been unable to effectively counter such arguments.
It would be a great pity to buy more Chinooks, only to repeat the cycle of mothballing or disposing of most of them when the lessons of Afghanistan are forgotten, same as when lessons of Vietnam were forgotten and the original 12 were mothballed and then disposed of. Army have to really learn this lesson and Army Aviation have to develop effective lobby to counter future inevitable raids on their capability, which to my eyes, will always be needed in significantly greater numbers than the 7 we will soon have.
This probably means any further buy beyond the 7 will need to be modest so it can be defended long term as not extravagant once Afghanistan memory fades. Of course Afghanistan was unusual as we couldn't send our medium lift helos so had to rely exclusively on Chinook.
Talking numbers by armchair observers like myself is always a bit silly as it needs proper professional analysis of required capability. We need to plan on not only short term deployment, but also long term deployment as has been needed recently.
The Army should be arguing to Politicians about them being unique for humanitarian response in PNG, since Caribou gone- polies seem more impressed by humanitarian word than any other.

 

[Volkodav]

It will be interesting to see what effect the needs of the LHDs have in determining future helicopter numbers . The LHDs will likely rely on a minimum number of embarked MRH-90 and Chinooks to be effective in given roles and if total numbers in the ADF are unable to surge to meet these needs then logically numbers will have to increase.

 

[Magoo]

I think the original 12 CH-47C Chinooks were disposed of because they were rapidly becoming obsolescent and needed replacing, but we just couldn't afford a 1 for 1 replacement with D models which were quite a lot more capable and costly.

While 12 to 4 doesn't sound like a great trade-off, at least it allowed Army to retain the Chinook skillset until more could be acquired later on.

 

[Magoo]

It will be interesting to see what effect the needs of the LHDs have in determining future helicopter numbers . The LHDs will likely rely on a minimum number of embarked MRH-90 and Chinooks to be effective in given roles and if total numbers in the ADF are unable to surge to meet these needs then logically numbers will have to increase.

The LHDs will have a normal MRH component of ~4-6 MRHs, and then a surge capacity of up to 14 depending on what type of ops are to be conducted. Chinooks will likely only be embarked for training in the waters around TSV, for Pacific Partner style deployments to places like PNG, or for amphibious ops that specifically require heavy lift.

Having LHDs does not necessarily justify an increased requirement for Chinooks, and in fact may actually make Chinooks more efficient by being able to provide closer basing proximity to AOs - as Steve George wrote in a recent article in Australian Aviation, '"proximity equals capability".

 

[rjtjrt]

I think the original 12 CH-47C Chinooks were disposed of because they were rapidly becoming obsolescent and needed replacing, but we just couldn't afford a 1 for 1 replacement with D models which were quite a lot more capable and costly.

While 12 to 4 doesn't sound like a great trade-off, at least it allowed Army to retain the Chinook skillset until more could be acquired later on.

I stand to be corrected, but my memory is that 12 CH-47C went to zero (i think they may have been mothballed) reportedly due to Army dismayed as chinook very expensive to run. They had inherited the C's from RAAF and suddenly found out just how much they cost per hour, and decided they would prefer to spend that money on other things.
Then Army realised that they needed heavy lift helo capability to move fuel bladders to support field deployment of the then new Blackhawk, and getting rid of them may have all may have been a bit premature.
So they traded the mothballed 12 C's for 4 new (or remanufactured) D's . Subsequently later 2 more purchased.
All this went on when Army was digesting the RAAF helo transfer, so it was presumably the start of a learning process that is still in progress (this is not a reflection on Army or Army Aviation - they are very professional, but it was a lot different paying all the costs of battlefield and heavy helo, rather than just being an end user).
Now Army know a hell of a lot more on just where the sensible line of compromise is between necessary expenditure on aviation in competition with other demands. Hopefully, they will now increase Chinook fleet to allow a sustainably larger long term deployed number than the 2 we struggled to keep in Afghanistan, plus the utility of short term availability of more than 7.
Again, using the Humanitarian word to polies should help get extra funds, espec in conjunction with the special requirements of PNG.

 

[aussienscale]

RAAF video and Facebook link to the decommissioning of 3 AP-3C Orions, their airframes had reached end of life, all spare parts have been removed to re-use on remaining airframes and the bodies and wings have been scrapped.

Obviously just the start, but does anyone know of any plans to keep any airframes for display/museum pieces ? could not find anything

Cheers

https://www.facebook.com/RoyalAustralianAirForce/posts/10152596800332639

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUNN_IynV9c

 

[gf0012-aust]

RAAF video and Facebook link to the decommissioning of 3 AP-3C Orions, their airframes had reached end of life, all spare parts have been removed to re-use on remaining airframes and the bodies and wings have been scrapped.

Obviously just the start, but does anyone know of any plans to keep any airframes for display/museum pieces ? could not find anything

Cheers

https://www.facebook.com/RoyalAustralianAirForce/posts/10152596800332639

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUNN_IynV9c

would be nice to have a neptune/orion display pairing

 

[John Newman]

RAAF video and Facebook link to the decommissioning of 3 AP-3C Orions, their airframes had reached end of life, all spare parts have been removed to re-use on remaining airframes and the bodies and wings have been scrapped.

Obviously just the start, but does anyone know of any plans to keep any airframes for display/museum pieces ? could not find anything

Cheers

https://www.facebook.com/RoyalAustralianAirForce/posts/10152596800332639

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUNN_IynV9c

There was a brief article about the P-3's being scrapped on the AA website recently:

RAAF Orion drawdown begins | Australian Aviation

The relevant paragraph about future aircraft being preserved is below:

“The first stage of the disposal activity is the reduction of the fleet from 19 to 16 aircraft,” a spokesperson for Defence told Australian Aviation. “The retired aircraft provided best value to Defence by being stripped of all useable items as spares…once all of the useable items have been removed, the retired airframes are being reduced to scrap metal by [a South Australian] company. These three aircraft were assessed to have very limited heritage value; future disposal stages will provide for preservation of aircraft with high heritage value.”

I would assume that some of the airframes to be saved would be aircraft that served in the Middle East.

 

[Volkodav]

I stand to be corrected, but my memory is that 12 CH-47C went to zero (i think they may have been mothballed) reportedly due to Army dismayed as chinook very expensive to run. They had inherited the C's from RAAF and suddenly found out just how much they cost per hour, and decided they would prefer to spend that money on other things.
Then Army realised that they needed heavy lift helo capability to move fuel bladders to support field deployment of the then new Blackhawk, and getting rid of them may have all may have been a bit premature.
So they traded the mothballed 12 C's for 4 new (or remanufactured) D's . Subsequently later 2 more purchased.
All this went on when Army was digesting the RAAF helo transfer, so it was presumably the start of a learning process that is still in progress (this is not a reflection on Army or Army Aviation - they are very professional, but it was a lot different paying all the costs of battlefield and heavy helo, rather than just being an end user).
Now Army know a hell of a lot more on just where the sensible line of compromise is between necessary expenditure on aviation in competition with other demands. Hopefully, they will now increase Chinook fleet to allow a sustainably larger long term deployed number than the 2 we struggled to keep in Afghanistan, plus the utility of short term availability of more than 7.
Again, using the Humanitarian word to polies should help get extra funds, espec in conjunction with the special requirements of PNG.

As it was explained to me in the early 90s, the ADF had already mothballed six chooks for cost reasons when the decision was made to transfer the Blackhawks and Iroquois to the army. The intention had been for the RAAF to continue to operate the Chinooks in support of the Army however they had no interest in maintaining any helicopter capability at all after transferring the others and the Army was not in a position to take them over as well as absorb the Blackhawks and Iroquois.

The issue appears to have been bloody mindedness on the part of the RAAF but there were significant funding pressures at the time, as well as the difficulty in maintaining an orphan fleet of just six airframes for an indefinite period, to be considered. As it was the Army had assumed that by using the external tanks they would not need the Chinooks to deploy fuel bladders for them and that loads such as the 155mm guns could be broken down to be lifted by Blackhawks as well. As experience was gained it was realised that the Chinooks, although expensive to own and operate, were actually a force multiplier that more than justified their cost through enabling more effective and efficient use of other assets.

 

[Air Force Brat]

would be nice to have a neptune/orion display pairing

I agree, and at a very tender age the Neptunes were a real favorite of mine on the Naha flightline, loved those tip tanks, jets and big radials. What a neat airplane, and the P-3 was/is such a pretty airplane, both should be preserved, as they both served with great distinction.

 

[swerve]

Surprised nobody's posted this before - http://www.dsca.mil/sites/default/files/mas/australia_14-56_0.pdf

 

[StingrayOZ]

Surprised nobody's posted this before - http://www.dsca.mil/sites/default/files/mas/australia_14-56_0.pdf

There was a discussion about the surprise new 4 (upto) C-17's a little while back. Not really that surprised that the US approved it. Pretty quick on the link tho, its not even on the main website yet.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Surprised nobody's posted this before - http://www.dsca.mil/sites/default/files/mas/australia_14-56_0.pdf

that means that RAAF got through the Gate Review otherwise it wouldn't be on the shopping alert list to Congress

 

[swerve]

There was a discussion about the surprise new 4 (upto) C-17's a little while back. Not really that surprised that the US approved it. Pretty quick on the link tho, its not even on the main website yet.

I saw it posted elsewhere, & checked here, thinking to find a discussion. Too quick on the draw!

 

[Volkodav]

Well that's obviously where the rest of defence personnels pay raise went. Glib sarcasm aside a full squadron of ten C-17s is great and long overdue, the ADF first trying for Starlifters then Galaxies during Vietnam. I just wish governments were as responsible in dealing with the capability needs of the Army and Navy as they are with the needs of the RAAF (not just the C-17s but the Rhinos, Growlers and additional tankers)

 

[Trackmaster]

10 C-17s
Won't that change the whole pilot dynamic in the RAAF?
Lots of chapettes and chaps will now be streamed in that direction from initial training.
It will certainly give the C-17 community some grunt...lots of opportunities will open up.

 

[Magoo]

Well that's obviously where the rest of defence personnels pay raise went. Glib sarcasm aside a full squadron of ten C-17s is great and long overdue, the ADF first trying for Starlifters then Galaxies during Vietnam. I just wish governments were as responsible in dealing with the capability needs of the Army and Navy as they are with the needs of the RAAF (not just the C-17s but the Rhinos, Growlers and additional tankers)

Do you really think the C-17s are there just for the RAAF? They are a national asset that just happens to wear RAAF roundels...

 

[t68]

Do you really think the C-17s are there just for the RAAF? They are a national asset that just happens to wear RAAF roundels...

Did the RAAF make a submission to the goverment saying if you don't get them now you won't get them later,

Your allegiance to the RAAF is commendable, I think Volk and yourself are right C17 are an easy sell to the public. We just need the next AFV to be Amphiboius to generate the good news stories next time we have a major flood

 

[Volkodav]

Do you really think the C-17s are there just for the RAAF? They are a national asset that just happens to wear RAAF roundels...

While true the C-17s are a purple asset, that just happens to be operated by the RAAF, the SHs, Growlers and Lightnings are very much RAAF assets. I am not for one second suggesting that the RAAF don't need the gear they are getting and I applaud the fact that the ADF is benefiting from these acquisitions, rather I am lamenting the FACT that government, irrespective of colour / flavour, does not seem as willing to fund required capabilities for the other two services. For example while the Army has grown in size they are still struggling to get the tools they need to do the job the government expects them to do and while the RAN are getting new ships and probably new submarines, they are not the ones they have advised the government they need, rather the cheaper (upfront but more expensive overall) that the government and RAAF think are good enough.

When doing the T&E course as a precursor to the Masters, it was explained that the RAAF is much better at staff work than the other services. This means they, as well as being better at T&E in general, due to the safety culture of aviation, are in general much better at explaining their needs to the layman than the other services. This in turn usually results in the RAAF getting more of what they need, than the other services, when money is tight and often getting nice to have extras when more money is available while the other services are still missing out, or being left short, on core capabilities.

Basically the money being talked about for the ADDITIONAL four C-17s could cover, or go toward, the cost of a third LHD, a fourth AWD, OPVs to replace the ACPBs, replacements for the LCHs, LAND 400, additional Army airlift, SPGs, HIMARS, etc.

Again I am not saying the RAAF doesn't need the gear they are getting, rather that the other services have needs too and those needs do not seem to have the same priority with government, past or present, in fact, it sometimes seems that the RAAFs "nice to have's" get an easier ride through cabinet than the Army and RAN must haves.

Roll your eyes all you like but it would help if you actually read the whole of my posts before doing so and avoid me having to type paragraphs reiterating and expanding what I have already stated. No point flying off the handle and diving in to make a point when, if you had bothered reading what I had written, you would realise there was nothing in there to take acceptation to.