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

[Volkodav]

Likely true about surplus C-17s from the USAF but this fleet has been heavily utilized and the U.S. would be hurting themselves selling off assets that have no replacements on the horizon for probably decades! Canada should have expanded their fleet to 6 not 5.

It really is too bad that production is ending or more to the point that Australia didn't start buying them sooner, but no matter what way I look at it I can't see how Australia could have realistically acquired more than eight or possibly ten C-17s.

As I understand it the initial number was ordered as the numbers were crunched and it was seen as better value for money than the then current arrangements of chartering heavy lifters (Antanovs in particular) or for smaller loads flying extra C-130 sorties, so an earlier buy probably wouldn't have happened. It wasn't until the first four were in service that their utility was realised and then the need for deeper level maintenance making ordering extra frames sensible. Following Japans Tsunami and other HADR ops added to the realisation of the types full capabilities and potential hence the extra orders.

Ironically the impending end of production may drive the a final pair being ordered but prevent any more following but if production wasn't ended there may not have been the incentive to go for seven and eight in the near term.

Its just too bad the requirement couldn't have been set in the 90s for some other reason, leading to a much larger fleet being acquired over a longer period. This could have been offset by retiring the C-130 altogether while ordering the C-27J and KC-30A in greater numbers, as well as expanding the Chinook fleet. All wishful thinking as the currently planned fleet is still very impressive.

 

[rjtjrt]

That's not what I was getting at, the USAF have a lot more C-17's than they actually need to do the job they want them to do, you can blame that on pork barrel politics in the US. So what I'm saying is that after Boeing has sold all their white tails there's probably a good chance that operators could buy additional frames from the USAF.

The USAF wanted to mothball C-5's but government (?congress) said no. So not convinced they would sell any C-17's.
In any case, presumably they would not sell their C-17ER version, but the early build C-17's, with different cockpit and fuel capacity to ours.
Again, I can't imagine any way USAF would sell any of their C-17 fleet.

 

[rjtjrt]

Whilst useful, I believe the C-27s were a missed opportunity to increase our Chinook fleet. Battlefield lift is obviously a crucial capability and has been since the Korean War. A fleet of 7 is far too small and a fixed wing aircraft hasn't been the optimal solution since DC3s circa 1945.

With C130s, C17s, KC30 and KingAirs on board it would have been more useful to double the CH47 fleet. Particularly with LHDs coming online soon.

It seems that we are a bit unbalanced in airlift when the Chinook is looked at.
7 seems barely enough.
If RAAF still had the Chinooks I don't doubt we would have more than 7. Army need to get the current Chinook used more in distaster relief, such as Vanuatu, so as to demonstrate to Government the unique HADR value of the Chinook. That would sell to Gov the idea of extra funds being made available. HADR is the key to the government heart.
Army are cash strapped more than any other service, but need to "play the game" more (learn from RAAF). Army won't want to sacrifice other capability to free up money for more than absolute minimum number of Chinook, and 7 is scraping the bottom of the barrel in terms of absolute minimum to deploy 2 long term.

 

[gf0012-aust]

The USAF wanted to mothball C-5's but government (?congress) said no. So not convinced they would sell any C-17's.
In any case, presumably they would not sell their C-17ER version, but the early build C-17's, with different cockpit and fuel capacity to ours.
Again, I cn't imagine any way USAF would sell any of their C-17 fleet.

there is also a very strong aversion to buying any second hand US kit after the fiasco of B1 and B2

The USN has demonstrated a willingness to break their own runs to allow RAAF to buy in (new Growlers)

The Abrams purchase was done around zeroed frames - so although second hand they actually underwent a complete pull down and NOS rebuild

You can't zero an aircraft cheaply, so the cost to zero a C-17 would place them perilously close to new costs.

Although congress in recent years has not been hostile to releasing in service assets to friendlies - they are very much unpredictable when it comes to internal service reqs. Hence the merry dance around congress and the QDR's

eg other US members on here would be able to add detail as to how the services proffer up savings by cutting fleet costs only to have congress veto the proposals and order them to maintain assets - thus perpetuating the problem for savings (which are only really realised when you pull an entire type from the fleet so as to kill the logistics and sustainment burden on orhpaned componentry etc...)

 

[t68]

It might sound funny to some here, but if I had the choice of increasing the C-17A fleet from 8 to 10 or see those very scarce defence 'dollars' go elsewhere, I'd like to see the KC-30A fleet reach at least eight airframes, possibly ten!!

Agree about needing extra AAR aircraft but I guess with a limited budget and a production line that is closing and only a limited number of airframes available I would choose C17 over MRTT. If RAAF play their cards right in the future we may end up with a combi for the C130J replacement A400M will gives RAAF tactical lift and if needed can also act as AAR but that didn't help in the short term unless RNZAF opt for A400M and we politely ask they they tick the AAR option box.*



Edit,
Just remembered by the time C130J replacement comes up we may not need the AAR capabilty of the A400 as once the F/A18F &G's pay off the entire fleet will be boom compliant unless we fit probes to some of the rotary fleet.

It seems that we are a bit unbalanced in airlift when the Chinook is looked at.
7 seems barely enough.
If RAAF still had the Chinooks I don't doubt we would have more than 7. Army need to get the current Chinook used more in distaster relief, such as Vanuatu, so as to demonstrate to Government the unique HADR value of the Chinook. That would sell to Gov the idea of extra funds being made available. HADR is the key to the government heart.
Army are cash strapped more than any other service, but need to "play the game" more (learn from RAAF). Army won't want to sacrifice other capability to free up money for more than absolute minimum number of Chinook, and 7 is scraping the bottom of the barrel in terms of absolute minimum to deploy 2 long term.

*
Absolutely Army Aviation needs a top up but I think it going to be a battle of either C27J which was bought directly for the intra battlefield lift or extra Chinook, once the LHD are able to show their worth in the years to come extra heavy rotary lift needed and as you point out can be heavily influenced by the HADR argument. While Chinnock offers the best value for our dollar but operationally wise it might be prudent to look at V22 Osprey which might influence things abit more once LHD are at FOC V22 gives us the ability for long range resupply but with the limitation of only 1 V22 spot *per LHD compared to the 4 spots for Chinook

Once they have sorted MRH I think they offer more mobilty than the Black hawks but I think we let a golden opportunity slip thru our fingers, according to the ANO report on the MRH, Sikorsky gave the government the options of new build helicopters or refurbishing the existing fleet for less $ than the MRH deal and more airframes. With hindsight I think it might have proved more beneficial to have selected a buy of Seahawks for operations off the LHD and refurbish the exiting Blackhawk fleets to the same avionics and power train compatibility as it will give Army limited capacity for concurrent Battalion and ARG lift. problem was funding but would have the Blackhawk refurbishment at home creating additional jobs.

 

[John Newman]

Agree about needing extra AAR aircraft but I guess with a limited budget and a production line that is closing and only a limited number of airframes available I would choose C17 over MRTT. If RAAF play their cards right in the future we may end up with a combi for the C130J replacement A400M will gives RAAF tactical lift and if needed can also act as AAR but that didn't help in the short term unless RNZAF opt for A400M and we politely ask they they tick the AAR option box.*


Edit,
Just remembered by the time C130J replacement comes up we may not need the AAR capabilty of the A400 as once the F/A18F &G's pay off the entire fleet will be boom compliant unless we fit probes to some of the rotary fleet.

Your 'edit' that you did was exactly the point I was going to make to you, an AAR capability for A400M's (if they were ever eventually in Australian or NZ service), wouldn't be the AAR solution that I was thinking of.

By the mid 2020's, virtually every aircraft in RAAF service (that is capable of AAR), will require a 'boom' equipped tanker, the F-35A's, C-17A's, KC-30A's, E-7A's, P-8A's all require a boom tanker, it would only be the Shornets and Growlers that require the hose and drogue system.

Anyway, it will be interesting to see, in the new DWP, if the 'extra' two KC-30A's that the former Def Min was talking about last year actually happens!

 

[t68]

Anyway, it will be interesting to see, in the new DWP, if the 'extra' two KC-30A's that the former Def Min was talking about last year actually happens!

I think it's inevitable as the PM has stated its his preferred option to use MRTT as a VIP aircraft. But I would prefer him to just bite the bullet and order them plus an extra without the fruit just for VIP*

 

[John Newman]

I think it's inevitable as the PM has stated its his preferred option to use MRTT as a VIP aircraft. But I would prefer him to just bite the bullet and order them plus an extra without the fruit just for VIP*

I really don't care if the 'potential' two new KC-30A's are both equipped with a VIP interior (seriously, who cares?) As long as the aircraft are fully fitted for AAR as the other five in service (boom and underwing pods) and are 'fully' capable of acting in the AAR role when required, what does it matter if 'some' of the cabin space is occupied by a VIP interior?

Wouldn't that be better than the RAAF only getting one fully equipped KC-30A and the other a standard A330-200 with 'just' a VIP fit-out and nothing else?

Possibly the VIP fit-out might be 'modular' as is the case with most modern commercial airliners, of which the KC-30A is based on, the A330-200, if that was the case, then the VIP module could be removed and the cabin space fitted out with the same 'economy' class seating as in the other aircraft.

If I remember correctly, the original plan was to order five and there was also an option for another three, but that expired (and probably likely due to all the problems that had been encountered bringing the type into service), so even if these two are ordered (regardless of one or both fitted with a VIP interior), it still leaves the AAR fleet 'one' short (based on the original 5+3 plan).

Two will be better than nothing!!!

 

[John Newman]

Personally I miss the days when you could discuss politics, express your objections to something the government or opposition was doing or saying without being labelled and dismissed as a Leftard by anyone who doesn't support Tony Abbott, misogynist if you don't love Gillard, or a Tory if you don't like Shorten, if you happen to mention you like Turnbull you are immediately labelled both a looney left wing commie and a fascist.

There were decisions (mistakes) made in the past that should be lessons learned and things being done and said today that are / would be just as bad, but you are not allowed to discuss for party political reasons i.e. it will start a name calling spat. Reasoned discussion has pretty much been shut down and you are assigned to one camp or another by your position on individual issues, i.e. my mother thought I was a right wing nutter and my uncle (her brother) believes me to be a bleeding heart socialist, that's how pathetically polarised things have become.

I just think it is a shame the way things have gone and the way things are shut down because of the almost inevitability of causing an argument and offence.

V, I've been mulling over if I should (or shouldn't), reply to your 'reply' to my comment of a couple of days ago, well here goes.....

Mate, seriously? I think you have totally misread, misunderstood or misconstrued exactly what I said and the point I was making. Did anyone say that a 'relevant' political comment wasn't unacceptable? No, not at all.

Like you (and yes I do know you like talking 'politics' too), there is nothing wrong at all, as you have said, discussing or reviewing 'decisions of the past' that have been made by a politician or Government (of any flavour) regarding defence matters, specifically how those decisions have affected defence (both good or bad).

For example, both you and I have made regular comments in reply to each other (especially in the RAN thread) about the complete failure during the six years of the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd Governments to order not even just 'one' ship for the Navy from an Australian shipyard, none, nil, zero!

The failure to order the 4th AWD, which may have reduced the 'valley of death' issue for Australian Naval shipbuilding and certainly would have been good for the RAN, the failure to invest money in expanding Techport so that there was the 'potential' to have the two AOR's built there (instead of having to go overseas due to the short timeframe now), the 'on again, off again' saga of the OCV's, included in the 2009 DWP, then by the time of the 2013 DWP pushed out in to the 'never, never', the taking out of money out of defence to try and help fill the Government's budget 'black hole'.

All those comments have been relevant to where Defence (specifically the RAN and Australian shipbuilding) is now, true?

But at no time do I believe that I ever made a 'specific' comment about Rudd or Gillard 'personally', it has always been about the Government they led.

I'm sure like you, I have a lot of strong opinions of individual politicians, especially PM's, from the current to the past, including the two that have recently passed away, but what would be the point or purpose of me saying what my personal opinion of those individuals is in this forum? What 'value' would those personal opinions serve in adding to a defence debate here on DT? The answer to that is none!

So going back to the original comment that prompted two others and myself to make a comment (and I can only talk for myself of course), I just didn't think it was necessary, relevant or acceptable to be making that 'type' of comment about the 'individual', it was as the saying goes "playing the man, not the ball" and served no purpose whatsoever other than to be a 'personal' attack on a particular individual, eg, 'the current PM' (regardless of my political leaning, I would have found it unacceptable regardless which side of the fence the PM came from).

V, can I suggest you go back a few pages in this thread and have a 're-read' too.

Anyway, my rant is almost over! (and apologies to the Mod Team too)

So as I was trying to say, lets leave 'personal' comments about individual politicians to aside (they serve no purpose or add no value other than to show one's own political colours is all) and discuss relevant matters here on DT, if that includes a review of 'political' decisions made by a particular Government (current or previous of any 'flavour'), fine by me.

Just asking that we don't "play the man, but play the ball" instead, OK?

Cheers,

John

 

[gf0012-aust]

I'd suggest that if anyone has some conflct with anyone elses comments and are unsure of whether its a comms problem that they sort it out via PM's in the first instance

it reduces the need for possible further colour and movement happening and increases the chances of things staying tidy.....

 

[John Newman]

I'd suggest that if anyone has some conflct with anyone elses comments and are unsure of whether its a comms problem that they sort it out via PM's in the first instance

it reduces the need for possible further colour and movement happening and increases the chances of things staying tidy.....

Agree, apologies to the Mod team.

For my part I was attempting to 'clear the air' about a public reply to a comment of mine that was originally intended to return the focus of the matters at hand, eg, discussions about relevant RAAF matters back to exactly that, relevant RAAF matters.

Again, agree and apologies to the Mod team too.

 

[Volkodav]

I'd suggest that if anyone has some conflct with anyone elses comments and are unsure of whether its a comms problem that they sort it out via PM's in the first instance

it reduces the need for possible further colour and movement happening and increases the chances of things staying tidy.....

No conflict, no complaint even, definitely not a rant or aimed at anyone here, just a wistful regret of where things are these days.

The discussion, in particular the current day requirement to avoid the expression of opinion during political discussion, to avoid unproductive degeneration into Neocon / Michael Moore, type BS, got me thinking about what it used to be like. For instance discussions in the mess when I was in the Uni Regt, were fun and informative and it was more than ok to disagree, the only trouble came from a Canadian born member who considered anyone who didn't blindly vote Liberal, (or preferably further right) to be a communist and would seek to shut down the discussion with slogans, abuse and vicious attacks. He was the minority back then but now his behaviour and tactics are the norm on both sides and I hate it.

John, I wasn't having a go at you and I am sorry you thought I was, I was rather thinking it is such a shame that so much in society has become so polarised that has, sadly, become necessary to quickly curtail political discussions, that were once ok, to avoid the sort of destructive flammings that are so common on other sites these days.

 

[Joe Black]

Compass Call for RAAF?

Would RAAF/ADF be interested in having this capability?

The U.S. Air Force is determined to junk half its best jammers

 

[aussienscale]

Would RAAF/ADF be interested in having this capability?

The U.S. Air Force is determined to junk half its best jammers

Highly doubt it, no politician on either side would take the gamble on any second hand US kit after B1 & B2.

Besides, the money invested into Wedgetail and the Growlers and their capability more than covers our requirements, force structure etc

Cheers

 

[Volkodav]

Highly doubt it, no politician on either side would take the gamble on any second hand US kit after B1 & B2.

Besides, the money invested into Wedgetail and the Growlers and their capability more than covers our requirements, force structure etc

Cheers

The sad thing is B1 and B2 were an Australian stuff up not the US trying to rip us off, an experienced, competent team surveyed and selected the best two available hulls, missed out on them by dilly dallying over the deal and then sending someone far less qualified, experienced and for that matter much less resourced, to choose the replacements from the dross that was left. One account I have heard was that there condition when they arrived in Sydney was so bad that major rectification work was required before they were considered seaworthy enough to set sail to Newcastle.

It is absolutely stupid that this has tainted our attitudes to some complete bargains as sending a competent marine surveyor as part of the team, or even contracting an agency to survey the ships, would have warned the government of and identified if the best of those left were worth buying.

 

[aussienscale]

One account I have heard was that there condition when they arrived in Sydney was so bad that major rectification work was required before they were considered seaworthy enough to set sail to Newcastle.

That is true, I was there

I agree with what you say, I have no aversion to second hand US kit, but I don't make the decisions, the politicians that do make the decisions are the one's that have

Cheers

 

[ADMk2]

Highly doubt it, no politician on either side would take the gamble on any second hand US kit after B1 & B2.

Besides, the money invested into Wedgetail and the Growlers and their capability more than covers our requirements, force structure etc

Cheers

I can see us looking seriously at MALD-J in years to come, because I don't think any force with pretentions of being able to conduct offensive operations against any effective likely threat has enough offensive EW capability, but I agree. I doubt we'll have the slightest interest in these...

As to second hand US kit, we have bought scond hand Abrams tanks, Chinook helicopters and the Bromeo helo since B1 and B2 were bought...

 

[gf0012-aust]

As to second hand US kit, we have bought scond hand Abrams tanks, Chinook helicopters and the Bromeo helo since B1 and B2 were bought...

True, but the small platforms have less risk attached as all of them were zeroed frames and thats why they pass the risk element in the acquisition matrix

can't zero a ship unfort

 

[ADMk2]

True, but the small platforms have less risk attached as all of them were zeroed frames and thats why they pass the risk element in the acquisition matrix

can't zero a ship unfort

True, but was just politely addressing the comment that we have NO appetite for second hand platforms since Bill and Ben.

 

[gf0012-aust]

True, but was just politely addressing the comment that we have NO appetite for second hand platforms since Bill and Ben.

plus the RAAF have worked out how to get things past the gatekeepers..

there's certainly no appetite to buy second hand ships from the USN. Despite the fact that the USN has a very very close relationship with RAN and RAAF and have been instrumental in getting gear fast tracked