I'm pretty sure the two ex-lease aircraft just bought will constitute the large VIP aircraft. I can't see any more A330s being bought just for VIP on top of those. If they did though, I would be amazed if they bought more aircraft and didn't modify them to be tankers as well. It just makes too much sense - the RAAF would be all for it, and so would the politicians as it would mean they could pretend they are simply flying on normal Air Force aircraft, saving the tax payer money, as opposed to dedicated luxury tax payer money wasting jets. You would certainly never know the difference - the only thing different from a normal A330 and a MRTT on the inside is the presence of a small room for the boom operator just behind the cockpit.
Royal Australian Air Force [RAAF] News, Discussions and Updates
John Newman
The Bunker Group
If we had a fire season that lasted a whole 12 months of the year, then yes a permanent fire bombing solution would probably be worthwhile investing in, but we don't have a fire season that lasts a whole 12 months.
Last Wednesday I drove past Richmond (the flight line is looking pretty thin these days, but that's another story!). Anyway, parked at the Western end of the runway were two C-130 fire bombers and also the DC-10/MD-11 fire bomber, and that was after two days of heavy rain in NSW too, they looked like drowned rats!!!
I suppose this sort of capability (for however long it is needed each year), is best handled by the 'experts', and is probably best done by each state leasing what it believes is necessary for it's particular fire season.
If we start employing a defence asset, eg the C-27J's, then for those assets to be truly available for the full fire season (apart from their normal defence related roles), then the fleet would probably have to be doubled to be able to fulfil both roles.
The question is, is that value for money?
Are we better employing the C-27J's purely in the role they are intended for and at the same time (for the fire season) leasing the appropriate capability to address that problem? Or do we assign a significant amount of the C-27J fleet for the sole purpose of being fire bombers and exclude them from their 'normal' operational roles?
Personally I think they should be kept separate, unless we have a couple of dozen C-27J airframes to play with and employ whatever is necessary for whatever role it is asked to do (defence matters or fire bombing), without a compromise, then I don't think it's a good idea.
t68
Well-Known Member
Why we did not keep the C130H and convert 2 of them to fire bombers was beyond me, each state and federal goverment could have contributed to the up keep and could of used RAAF pilots, I'm sure some of the flight profiles used in tactical flying could translate fire bomber bit of OJT
Hercules firefighting tanker arrives in Australia | Australian Aviation
Also Blackhawk could be put in the action as well once they are retired if they have enough hours left
https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Laco-s70-N160LA-040501-01.jpg
Actually the ASH does exist, Has for quite a few years however the USN is in no rush. They want it done once, Done right so it is quite likely they we will end up with it as to my knowledge the ASH kit is designed to effectively bolt onto existing Shornets.
That said, No we should not go for the ASH over the F-35. We are too far into the game while any increased fleet number would be a pointless endeavor as we dont have the pilots or ground crew to support them nor do I see and actual need for them, Our regional rivals are still a long long long way off of having any air force of threat to us.
Perhaps if we had ordered an extra dozen or 2 Shornets when we made the initial order then it would have been appropriate as back then it could be seen as providing greater breathing room until the F-35 was sorted out, However today with everything on track and the worst behind us it would be a waste of finances that are badly needed every where else.
If we are going for hypotheticals, why not 138x ASH AND 92x F-35's? That would create more capability than EITHER option...
Seriously though, If we have more money available to purchase extra aircraft, why not simply apply that extra cash to F-35? Why would we have extra cash that allows us to purchase (and presumably support additional numbers of ASH's) but not F-35?
Why not say, 128 F-35 (extra 2 full strength squadrons added) v 138 ASH?
Or are you presuming some price differential will be so great that we could afford the purchase and support of an extra 46 tactical fighters over what we have budgetted for the F-35? Really?
Confused...
Hey, heres a thought!(bubble) lets just get 28 F35B, s and fly em off the LHD, s!!!
(Putting stirers hat on, and giggling to self like an idiot, atm)
(Putting stirers hat on, and giggling to self like an idiot, atm)
A quote from the airforce technology website..."Caylym Technologies sales and marketing team head Garrett Miller said the system does not require aircraft modification to counter wildfires, and requires no additional training for operation as a majority of the crews are already trained on container delivery system (CDS) dropping techniques."
If the marketing blurb is to be believed (!!!), it doesn't seem like there us any significant upfront costs or aircraft mod's required, nor that any aircraft would be required to be permanently assigned year round to this role.
The Romanian Airforce has this system and uses them from C27s as required.
Whilst i certainly dont profess to be an aerial firefighting expert, I think you pose a very good question, though maybe it should be slightly reworded...is it value for money to NOT use available assets to fight national disasters such as the WA or Vic bushfires, when there appears to be minimal cost.
Just to point out, We are getting 72 F-35's, not 92 so a 50% increase on that would be 36 air frames which we actually already have through the current 24 Shornets and future 12 Growlers so your hypothesis is pointless as it is based off of false information.
You also cant take the simple up front cost factor into account, With the F-35 we have industry input that over the life time will create billions in revenue and support hundreds of jobs, There is no such position with the Shornet or even ASH. With the way production of the Shornet is going for Boeing long term they will want to milk as much as they can out of St. Louis which means doing all of the ASH work in house.
That all aside, the extra funds needed could be used else where of far more importance as the cost's you are talking we would be spending in excess of $2 billion more just in fly away costs, add the various systems, spares etc and you are above $3 billion, Throw in all the extra pilots, ground crew etc that there is no guarantee we could get (In the past we have had issues manning our current assets with I believe at one point having as few as 40 something pilot's for our Hornets) and the cost sky rockets further and further, If that cash could be found (Without destroying another acquisition) Im sure the RAAF could find better use for it, if not the RAAF then definitely the Army. UAV's, Extra P-8's, The final E-7 option, the final C-17, A400M's.. Any of them would be more desirable and useful then extra fixed wing combat aircraft that we can neither man nor have any need for.
That 92 figure is from a throwaway line from Abbott of all people that we won't get more than 92 F-35's, ie: 72 + 18 for the 4th squadron and + 2 attrition / pool aircraft or some such apparently.
Makes sense, He did love to say a lot of random crap. Note to all: Ignore everything Abbott ever said
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Well for starters, the ASH doesn't really exist. Furthermore, the upgraded engines are just the current engines run at maximum output, not ideal for longentivity. More importantly the cost would never be 50% of a F-35. Unless the USN bought into the ASH the cost would likely be more. Then there is all the capability the F-35 has over the ASH (stealth, sensor fusion, better networking, range). This is the same BS concept being promoted in Canada. It will result in Canadian aerospace firms losing valuable future JSF contracts and will require another fast jet replacement in 15-20 years instead of 30-35. Supporting 100-200 of these jets versus 3000+ JSF will be more expensive on a per unit basis. Same for upgrades assuming Boeing would even bother developing upgrades for such a small fleet.
Can't be considered unless the USN agrees and this does not seem likely.
As I have stated I disagree with going for the ASH over the F-35 let alone in the number's he hypothesized however people need to stop jumping on the ASH just to support the F-35.
The ASH does exist, They have made a working prototype fitted with the CFT and enclosed weapons pod, It's not some paper design yet to be built so let's get that straight.
On range the F-35A has a 613nm combat radius on internal fuel, the ASH on internal fuel also has 700nm so why you bring that aspect up is beyond me.
As to stealth, It is a great feature that Im happy Australia is acquiring but there is always that risk that future radar developments will negate that advantage making such capability for naught.
What the F-35 has over the SH or even future ASH is it's networking and computer side of things, Yes they will make improvements to the SH and ASH but they will never be on par with the F-35.
As to your replacement time lines, If you are talking a 2025 acquisition then those time frames you mention make sense seeing as the USN has stated they will have to keep there Shornets in service through to at least 2040.
I also don't there being purely 100 - 200 ASH going into the future, I see the USN eventually rolling out at least the CFT and weapons pod across the entire fleet as they will still have some Shornets flying 3 decades from now and these 2 components alone have shown to massively increase it's capabilities.
As for cost's, I don't imagine they would be any greater or any less for that matter. The ASH isn't that different from the current Shornet and I don't see the RAAF jumping up and down saying they are too expensive to operate, Adding a CFT and weapons pod will not add significantly to the cost of maintenance as you presume nor do we have an accurate fix on the maintenance cost's of the F-35 so you cant presume the x amount of aircraft will drop the price. Large numbers of aircraft will drop the cost of procuring certain parts as they would be ordered in mass, However each aircraft will still need so many hours of maintenance and certain parts refurbished and having large amounts of aircraft will not eliminate or even negate those costs, Not unless you plan to send them all to a single refurbishment line to do the work on a continuous mass basis production line style.
John Newman
The Bunker Group
You mention the Romanian Air Force has this system or their C-27's.
Romania is 238,391 km2, which pretty well equates to Victoria which is 237,629 km2.
The whole of Australia on the other hand is 7,692,024 km2, so where do we base the C-27J's during the fire season? Realistically the fleet of 10 airframes would have to be spread around the country during the period of the fire season to be of any real practical use.
I'd imagine you would need at least two airframes based in each state (one operational, one back up), two in WA, SA, Vic, Tas, NSW and QLD, that's 12 airframes and we only have 10 in total!
Not saying that the C-27J's couldn't do the job with the appropriate fire fighting system, it's just that I can't see how in would work in practice when each State would demand that a system be based in their particular state for the fire season.
Still think it would be better for each state to lease their capabilities for the fire season, as they currently do.
John Newman
The Bunker Group
As I understand it, the 'prototype' you mention was a standard Super Hornet fitted with 'dummy' conformal tanks and the same probably goes for the weapons pod, they were aerodynamic representations, but not actually production standard.
Just because they were bolted to the standard airframe does not actually make an ASH.
I disagree. Australia has some large population centers which is where 95% of the population lives. Sparsely inhabited areas are not a major concern. There is much more space between a fire front and a house that its less of a issue. Most of the deaths and property lost from fires are around (~100km) the major metro areas. Particularly in the bush, inaccessible hilly areas around a city.
Well they were getting a workout before that, they each did about 30 sorties directly over my home fighting a rather large fire in a remote and rugged area half way between Singleton and Windsor.
There are also ~8 helicopters used for spotting, and spot fires, 2 fuel trucks, a fire truck in a makeshift heliport at a cricket ground at Wilberforce.
The cardboard box thing seems interesting (I have my reservations). With fighting fires the concern is peak capacity. Having the RAAF able to use C27, C-130 or C17 to help out in emergencies would be huge and could save hundreds of lives.
I think that too, but as additional capability or to make it more efficient.
Im not saying that we should depend on the RAAF to fight our fires, but it would be worth looking at it as an addition.
You are correct, aerodynamic pods to do flight handling checks. Oh, and they have not done any of the upgraded avionics, IRST, or MAWS yet.
Some interesting discussion over the last couple of days.
On using the C-27 as an auxiliary fire bomber I can see the advantage of this, especially as the system is modular. What it will come down to is certification of the capability and it's impact, if any, on core capabilities. Personally I see it has the potential to continue the ADFs long and much admired tradition of assisting the civilian population during natural disasters and times of need.
Another thought crosses my mind, should the capability prove too poor a fit for the C-27/130 fleets (unless I am mistaken the mentioned system is also compatible with the Herc) airframe and personnel numbers could be increased. For example additional aircraft could be acquired to replace the King Airs in No. 38 Sqn and assigned to cover off tactical airlift, SAR, and aerial fire fighting, alternatively when retendering the Coast Watch, SAR etc. contracts the government could also bundle fire bombing into the mix if it is determined the function does not fit the ADF.
On the ASH I believe discussing it as alternative to the F-35 is completely unrealistic as it will prove significantly more expensive in the long term and no cheaper in the short term while significantly reducing the ADFs capabilities going forward. The platform is not much if actually any cheaper than the F-35, especially not enough to be able to afford an additional squadron or two. Also, being a 4.5 Gen evolution it will not be competitive moving into the 2020s which will limit Australias strategic options, i.e. whether to provide air combat support to future coalitions, or will require a much earlier, more expensive replacement than the Lightning.
That said, should the strategic situation dictate so in the next few years, I could see a case for retaining and upgrading the existing SH force after the introduction of the Growler and Lightning. This would how ever be dependant on a USN spiral upgrade of their fleet for us to hook into....
On using the C-27 as an auxiliary fire bomber I can see the advantage of this, especially as the system is modular. What it will come down to is certification of the capability and it's impact, if any, on core capabilities. Personally I see it has the potential to continue the ADFs long and much admired tradition of assisting the civilian population during natural disasters and times of need.
Another thought crosses my mind, should the capability prove too poor a fit for the C-27/130 fleets (unless I am mistaken the mentioned system is also compatible with the Herc) airframe and personnel numbers could be increased. For example additional aircraft could be acquired to replace the King Airs in No. 38 Sqn and assigned to cover off tactical airlift, SAR, and aerial fire fighting, alternatively when retendering the Coast Watch, SAR etc. contracts the government could also bundle fire bombing into the mix if it is determined the function does not fit the ADF.
On the ASH I believe discussing it as alternative to the F-35 is completely unrealistic as it will prove significantly more expensive in the long term and no cheaper in the short term while significantly reducing the ADFs capabilities going forward. The platform is not much if actually any cheaper than the F-35, especially not enough to be able to afford an additional squadron or two. Also, being a 4.5 Gen evolution it will not be competitive moving into the 2020s which will limit Australias strategic options, i.e. whether to provide air combat support to future coalitions, or will require a much earlier, more expensive replacement than the Lightning.
That said, should the strategic situation dictate so in the next few years, I could see a case for retaining and upgrading the existing SH force after the introduction of the Growler and Lightning. This would how ever be dependant on a USN spiral upgrade of their fleet for us to hook into....
I can see the ADF's reluctance to commit major assets like C27 to fire-fighting duties. Once this occurs public opinion would likely demand it continue with the result that the ADF would effectively lose that capability for a significant portion of each year. I believe it is wise for Defence to keep a distance from national disaster management outside of dire emergencies.
---------------
Considering an all SH fleet, that would certainly be a viable option if you ignore wilder ideas like the Advanced SH or a 50% increase in numbers. Given the state of the air threat within range of Australia a single SQN of 24 x SH, backed up by the Growlers, AWACs, P8s and tankers is all we would really need if we went completely pacifist/neutral. Until Chinese carrier fleets start sailing up and down the east coast we won't likely face an air threat of any significance for a long time.
Not something I would ever want to see but in a hypothetical world where the Greens form their own government it would be sufficient for the foreseeable future.
If that is the "low" option then a "mid" option of 72 x SH would be plenty.
---------------
Considering an all SH fleet, that would certainly be a viable option if you ignore wilder ideas like the Advanced SH or a 50% increase in numbers. Given the state of the air threat within range of Australia a single SQN of 24 x SH, backed up by the Growlers, AWACs, P8s and tankers is all we would really need if we went completely pacifist/neutral. Until Chinese carrier fleets start sailing up and down the east coast we won't likely face an air threat of any significance for a long time.
Not something I would ever want to see but in a hypothetical world where the Greens form their own government it would be sufficient for the foreseeable future.
If that is the "low" option then a "mid" option of 72 x SH would be plenty.
Actually I dare say the biggest problem wouldn't be the ADF, but emergency services and state governments.
The way disaster management works here (as with everywhere else), is to wait for local resources to be exhausted before calling higher for help. So, local governments and local emergency services have to be overwhelmed before calling on State help, who then have to be overwhelmed before calling on Federal help, and Federal civilian resources have to be exhausted before calling on ADF help. The ADF is very much the option of last resort.
So if the RAAF was to aquire a fire fighting capability, it would only be used for the worst possible bushfire scenarios, where every other possible option has been exhausted. It therefore wouldn't be used very much at all, as that would rarely happen. For instance, it would almost certainly not be used right now if it existed, as no emergency has gotten that bad yet.
Instead of the government spending the money to give RAAF a fire fighting capability, I imagine that state governments in particular would prefer that money pay for fire fighting capability that they can control, so that it can actually be used for routine bush fire events and not just for Armageddon.