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

[Redlands18]

A frequent suggestion. Will they be flown by RAAF pilots? Because flying firefighting aircraft is a skill that must be practice frequently to maintain competency. At what cost to their availability as war fighters, and at what ( substantial) cost in airframe fatigue?

oldsig

There are plenty of logistical and ISR tasks ADF aviation can and does do during major Bushfire events, that allows the pros to do their job. Providing ISR assets will do far more good than using C-130s flown by untrained Amateurs. I bet if you asked a Firefighter if they would rather have one or two more Aircraft dumping retardant or Drones sitting at 5000 ft providing immediate constant high-quality intelligence in several different spectrums, they will take the Drones every time. This is the area that the ADF should be concentrating on.

The best way to use those C-130s and Helicopters is delivering supplies and personnel to local Base Camps, keeping the ISR assets operating.

 

[Stampede]

The KC30s were not so much cancelled by the Morrison Government in that as additional frames could not be sourced from QF and that there was a very limited source of A330s built to the same spec as those in QF, the RAAF was not interested in new build frames thus whilst outwardly the same, would essentially be a new sub-fleet to manage.

Interesting outcome and thanks for the reply.

Defence Integrated Investment Program

"3.16 The current ADF air-to-air refuelling capability, including a recently approved acquisition of two additional aircraft, comprises a fleet of seven air-to-air refuellers, with future consideration to expand the fleet to nine aircraft to meet increasing demand."

A what if question..................Would we have added to the fleet if compatible airframes could of been found?

That said, the A330 MRTT has proved a global success and is still in production, so maybe we should accept a sub fleet and build up numbers sooner rather than later.


Cheers S

 

[oldsig127]

The best way to use those C-130s and Helicopters is delivering supplies and personnel to local Base Camps, keeping the ISR assets operating.

Exactly my point. Water bomber kits would be a waste of resources - personnel, aircraft and the money spent on buying the kits.

 

[ADMk2]

Interesting outcome and thanks for the reply.

Defence Integrated Investment Program

"3.16 The current ADF air-to-air refuelling capability, including a recently approved acquisition of two additional aircraft, comprises a fleet of seven air-to-air refuellers, with future consideration to expand the fleet to nine aircraft to meet increasing demand."

A what if question..................Would we have added to the fleet if compatible airframes could of been found?

That said, the A330 MRTT has proved a global success and is still in production, so maybe we should accept a sub fleet and build up numbers sooner rather than later.


Cheers S

Yes. There was an option to boost the fleet up to 9 aircraft under FSP2020, but the LNP Government and Defence decided not to proceed with this and re-prioritised funding / resources to other projects instead.

So clearly Defence believed that additional airframes for KC-30A MRTT's could be obtained.

 

[Wombat000]

I think the first and easiest step that should be considered is probably RAAF obtaining 2 dedicated long-haul VIP aircraft.
The current practice of tasking KC-30 for this is a distraction from their AAR role, & fixing this will free up the airframe for more important tactical support tasking.

VIP aircraft are a perceptibly difficult subject, with common public notions of ‘luxury for the few’.
This is of course garbage, as they’re a necessary tool of govt, perhaps even more valuable in uncertain times.
Geography and sizes of accompanying diplomatic/media teams dictates a large long haul solution is appropriate.

Perhaps a ’cheaper’ ex- Qantas solution could be found in short time, simultaneously gifting a dedicated KC-30 back to RAAF AAR ops.

 

[Sideline]

DropBear1
Boeing Business Jet 777-200LR – range 10,030nmi (18,580km)

Press release:
Please read below in Brian Brown voice to the
theme music of the Victoria bitter commercial

In these hard and desperate times
we all need a little pick me up
DropBear1 a proud symbol of Australian culture
That would be suitable for Les Patterson or
whoever is our current prime minister that week.
a humble vehicle that lets Aussie politicians
act like the important people they wish they were
and let’s journalists lounge about in drunken comfort
and most importantly giving RAAF staff experience
with Boeing jets making it easier for them to find jobs
DropBear1 is not a cost it’s an employment training scheme
Proudly brought to you by the Australian Federal government

SORRY, I'll stop now

 

[John Newman]

Yes. There was an option to boost the fleet up to 9 aircraft under FSP2020, but the LNP Government and Defence decided not to proceed with this and re-prioritised funding / resources to other projects instead.

So clearly Defence believed that additional airframes for KC-30A MRTT's could be obtained.

No, that’s not correct.

The idea, or potential, of the 8th and 9th KC-30A first appeared in the 2016 DWP.

By the time the 2020 FSP was published, the idea was abandoned.

2016 DWP - Paragraph 4.44, starts bottom of page 95, to top of page 96:

https://www.defence.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-08/2016-Defence-White-Paper.pdf

2020 FSP - Paragraph 5.19, page 56:

https://www.defence.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-11/2020_Force_Structure_Plan.pdf

 

[John Newman]

I think the first and easiest step that should be considered is probably RAAF obtaining 2 dedicated long-haul VIP aircraft.
The current practice of tasking KC-30 for this is a distraction from their AAR role, & fixing this will free up the airframe for more important tactical support tasking.

VIP aircraft are a perceptibly difficult subject, with common public notions of ‘luxury for the few’.
This is of course garbage, as they’re a necessary tool of govt, perhaps even more valuable in uncertain times.
Geography and sizes of accompanying diplomatic/media teams dictates a large long haul solution is appropriate.

Perhaps a ’cheaper’ ex- Qantas solution could be found in short time, simultaneously gifting a dedicated KC-30 back to RAAF AAR ops.

I agree that we don’t want to see a valuable AAR asset being wasted on VIP duties, but the question is, what is the percentage of use for long range VIP duties?

Is it 5%? 10%? More? A significant percentage more?

If the aircraft only operates in the VIP role very occasionally for long range trips, eg, to Europe, the US or North Asia, then I don’t really see the problem.

I’d be more concerned if the Government procured a couple of ex-Qantas A330s purely for long range VIP transport, how little would they be used?

I would imagine that 34 Squadrons 2 x BBJ and 3 x Falcon 7X, get a fair work out.

Anyway, as I said, I’d like to know the percentage of long range VIP work the KC-30A performs, before I agree or not.

Cheers,

 

[Wombat000]

The aircraft are tasked for inter-continental diplomatic roles, therefore by their nature the aircraft is tasked for extended periods of time.

If there is such an issue of AAR capability, for such a relatively small fleet, the very least we can do is use what we have in an efficient way, not distracted by planned or developing competitive tasking, where the squadron is expected to just supply an airframe, especially when a solution is apparently cheaply available.

get a combo or two from the airline market. On slow days one can even move a pallet or two.

I struggle to reconcile the alarm at AAR capability limitations on one hand, and excusing distracting the same assets on the other.
You either want another aircraft or you don’t.

 

[John Newman]

The aircraft are tasked for inter-continental diplomatic roles, therefore by their nature the aircraft is tasked for extended periods of time.

If there is such an issue of AAR capability, for such a relatively small fleet, the very least we can do is use what we have in an efficient way, not distracted by planned or developing competitive tasking, where the squadron is expected to just supply an airframe, especially when a solution is apparently cheaply available.

get a combo or two from the airline market. On slow days one can even move a pallet or two.

I struggle to reconcile the alarm at AAR capability limitations on one hand, and excusing distracting the same assets on the other.
You either want another aircraft or you don’t.

Let’s be clear, I haven’t argued either way for more or less KC-30A, clear ok?

All I’ve asked is what percentage does KC-30A, A39-007, spend on long range VIP duties compared to AAR and other transport duties with 33 Squadron?

Again, what is the percentage?

 

[Wombat000]

Sorry John, I wasn’t referring to you specifically, just generally commenting.

we have a small AAR fleet.
lots of chat re advancing that capability to more adequately cater for their AAR role.

we have an aircraft, but it’s not there, instead it’s doing a task a far cheaper utility aircraft can do.
it might be away for a week.

However one might dismiss that as a percentage, for that time the limited capability is not there.

sounds like we want to bolster AAR, but it’s not really that important.
sounds like we have the exact number of aircraft we need already.

 

[ddxx]

I guess the question is what is the intended role / effect of additional KC-30s?

Tankers aren't a solve all in regards to air power projection at range. Trying to provide air cover at considerable range from a mainland base with multiple refuels and multiple tankers isn't ideal. There's just so many weak points in the chain, one breaks and the whole thing falls over.

There's a reason nations with such needs operate carriers and strategically located forward bases. Tankers are then used to sustain rather than enable operations. Where as currently we rely on tankers to enable and the idealistic hope that foreign governments will let us use their airstrips ... a tad optimistic?

 

[John Newman]

Sorry John, I wasn’t referring to you specifically, just generally commenting.

we have a small AAR fleet.
lots of chat re advancing that capability to more adequately cater for their AAR role.

we have an aircraft, but it’s not there, instead it’s doing a task a far cheaper utility aircraft can do.
it might be away for a week.

However one might dismiss that as a percentage, for that time the limited capability is not there.

sounds like we want to bolster AAR, but it’s not really that important.
sounds like we have the exact number of aircraft we need already.

So your angst wasn’t specifically directed at me? Ok, no prob, good to know.

Do we have a small AAR fleet? Actually I don’t think that is true.

Yes, clearly the US, France and UK have larger heavy tanker fleets, and the NATO consortium too, but their fleet is shared amongst many nations.

We have a larger heavy AAR fleet compared to Italy, India, Singapore, South Korea and currently Japan, who is in the process of enlarging their fleet.

In fact we have a larger heavy AAR tanker fleet than most nations that operate aircraft based on B707 and A330 airframes.

Should we have more KC-30A? Yes sure, more is good, more is better, more of ‘everything’ is better.

But it all comes at a cost, the Defence budget pie is only so big, it can only be sliced and diced in so many ways, what do we give up?

Moving forward, the 2020 FSP/DSU, stated that the eventual replacement fleet for the KC-30A would be larger, there are also suggestions that the replacement fleet for the C-130Js will be larger and may include a number of KC-130 too, all is not lost.


Going back to A39-007, I would still really like to know what percentage of its time is spent on long range VIP duties, I have no idea what it is.

We have 365 days in a year, is it 36.5 days (10%)?, is it 73 days (20%)? I have no idea.

 

[Wombat000]

I do generally become a tad bemused re this issue.
There seems a disconnnect in the ‘desire for more AAR‘ argument.
It is seemingly normalised in RAAF ( as directed by govt) that 1/6 of the AAR fleet is removed from the operational roster, in order to satisfy a larger payload/ long haul VIP role.

as I tried to say, I think that VIP role is actually very important.

Whatever % that actual extra time diverted from core functions is, it equals precisely the time 1/6 of capability is not available.
Some may argue that that time is relatively insignificant, if that is so it implies that there is indeed sufficient capacity in AAR already, 1/6th of strength is superfluous, and supplementing numbers is a luxury and not a requirement.

it kinda stretches the logic (to me anyway) that with the apparent proliferation of ex-airline combos (seems the most practical solution), obtaining 1 or 2 would result in a nett increase in AAR airframes available to the squadron, and solve the VIP question.
god forbid that same aircraft also opportunistically move some pallets when not moving diplomats.

all good (thumbs up).

 

[Mikeymike]

Is the fact that 1/6 of the AAR fleet sometimes used for VIP roles even an issue?

During a shooting war I doubt they would be used for VIP travel as they would be getting used in the operational role and I don't see a big demand for long-distance travel by VIPs.

In which case, using them as VIP aircraft during peacetime saves costs compared to having dedicated aircraft. This money can then be used to provide additional capability that is useful during a shooting war. Australia is not unique in this with both UK and Canada using a AAR plane as their main long-range VIP aircraft.

 

[Stampede]

Is the fact that 1/6 of the AAR fleet sometimes used for VIP roles even an issue?

During a shooting war I doubt they would be used for VIP travel as they would be getting used in the operational role and I don't see a big demand for long-distance travel by VIPs.

In which case, using them as VIP aircraft during peacetime saves costs compared to having dedicated aircraft. This money can then be used to provide additional capability that is useful during a shooting war. Australia is not unique in this with both UK and Canada using a AAR plane as their main long-range VIP aircraft.

Agree
In times of high demand we could charter a plane off Qantas for the VIP taskings freeing up the AAR fleet for their speciality.
It's not that transporting our national representatives is not important; it's just that there are alternatives to an RAAF aircraft in times of crissis.
Dedicated VIP aircraft do not provide enough flexibility for our needs.

Paradoxical it kind of works for New Zealand.
Their Boeing 757 provides VIP and personnel transport with some Cargo capacity utilising a large freight door.
As they have "seemingly" no need for AAR
These aircraft compliment there other logistic aircraft.
Appropriate for NZ but not for OZ


Cheers S

 

[DDG38]

Some Pitch Black 22 imagery. Source : ADF Image Library

 

[hauritz]

There are other ways of ensuring you can obtain AAR aircraft quickly when needed. The RAF have a leasing arrangement with a private company giving them access to up to five additional tankers if required.

 

[Takao]

AAR is an interesting topic that the FSP team spent a while on.

Everyone who commented on #8 and #9 is right and wrong. It was a conscious decision because of a couple of reasons. Reports and experimentation indicated that additional AAR were not necessarily the #1 way of improving strike range, there was a value for money angle and availability of airframes was an issue. When money was found we couldn't get an airframe and vis-a-vis. Ultimately there were other ways of providing effects at range that we easier/quicker/cheaper.

The RAAF justification of a KC-30A VIP aircraft was clear. I stand by it - it provides assurance for the VIPs, allows for simpler security, and provides a boost for the image we try and show overseas. I can't think of an issue where the dual roles were a problem.

I think if you have a look at the Land component of FSP20 you can see a justification for a KC-130 fleet, a common long-range rotor craft is a CH-47 with a probe.

 

[Stampede]

AAR is an interesting topic that the FSP team spent a while on.

Everyone who commented on #8 and #9 is right and wrong. It was a conscious decision because of a couple of reasons. Reports and experimentation indicated that additional AAR were not necessarily the #1 way of improving strike range, there was a value for money angle and availability of airframes was an issue. When money was found we couldn't get an airframe and vis-a-vis. Ultimately there were other ways of providing effects at range that we easier/quicker/cheaper.

The RAAF justification of a KC-30A VIP aircraft was clear. I stand by it - it provides assurance for the VIPs, allows for simpler security, and provides a boost for the image we try and show overseas. I can't think of an issue where the dual roles were a problem.

I think if you have a look at the Land component of FSP20 you can see a justification for a KC-130 fleet, a common long-range rotor craft is a CH-47 with a probe.

I wonder if the built gun on the F35 A has much relevance.
An optional add on Pod gun system as used on F35 B and C I can understand.
Maybe for the RAAF we may be better served with an F 35 A prioritising compatibility for Probe and Drogue operations at the expense of the in built gun system if we expand our Hercules Fleet with the KC-130 variant.

Something to consider


Cheers S