danrhIs it just me or does this look like Rafale Light 🙂
Daniel
danrh36Sqdn? From what I have been reading, 36Sqdn are going to keep their Hotels but loose half of them when the C-17’s come on line.
Exactly Ja, they lose half of their C-130H to make way fro their nice new 4 C-17s.
Daniel
danrhIIRC the amount of planes using the Probe system in RAAF service compared to those that use the Boom system is approximately equal in types, but not in numbers. There are more that actually use the probes!
By virtue of the fact that the most numerous type (71 Hornets) uses the probe 🙂 Of course a choice of the F-35A would swing that equation emphatically the other way. Hence the choise of a dual system makes good sense.
Daniel
danrhhttp://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19150115-31477,00.html
Nelson threat to sue over choppers may prove empty
Mark Dodd
May 16, 2006
DEFENCE Minister Brendan Nelson’s threat to sue the companies that supplied the navy’s trouble-plagued $1billion Seasprite helicopters may be futile because the Defence Department has already signed away the right to legal action.A senior Defence official warned earlier this year that the contract did not allow for Australia to claim for damages if the project was “liquidated”.
The Australian revealed yesterday that the Government had grounded the 10 Seasprite helicopters already supplied to the navy over safety concerns and was considering scrapping the program to refit and upgrade 11 of the US-designed helicopters.
Dr Nelson said the Government had ordered a review of the project, with options ranging from replacing the Seasprite, which was ordered in 1997, to persisting with its development.
Dr Nelson says software problems associated with the helicopter’s electronic equipment had affected flight safety and the chief of naval aviation had ordered their grounding.
Yesterday, Dr Nelson raised the option of suing the US companies behind the $1billion project, including the chief contractor, Kaman Aerospace International.
But Air Vice-Marshal Clive Rossiter, from the Defence Materiel Organisation, appearing before a Senate committee earlier this year, said the Seasprite contract did not contain a “liquidated damages” clause that would allow it to recover funds from the contractor in the event of failure.
danrhI like the insigna on the tail, that is new to me anyone have any info on it?
danrhIt’s the RAN’s fault for being incompetent imbeciles. Their procurement strategy is for want of a better word retarded. Look at not only the Seasprite or the Collins class subs, but the undergunned ANZAC frigates that had to be upgraded as soon as they were built or the Kanimbla and Manoora LST’s which needed extensive rebuilding to be of any use.
And now they’re acquiring air defence destroyers whose usefulness in our region is marginal.
As I said in another thread, line the Navy’s top brass up against a wall and shoot them.
Already replied to this same rant in the C-17 thread.
Its official RAAF to get C-17s
Daniel
danrhThat said, the decission to buy second hand models is the part that has not been the problem. The airframes were Zero houred, completely refurbished and new avionics and electronics installed. It is these electronics that are what is causing the problem. The comparison that Brendon Nelson gave today is very good, for those of you outside Australia I’ll make it more internationally recognisable: It’s like puting in 2006 BMW computer technology into a 1952 Corvette, the body might be able to fit it, but they just aren’t compatible!
These avionics are what is keeping them behind schedule (now 9 years behind target date), the opposition are saying finish it of and be done with it, it is no use spending over $1B only to cancel the job, that’s money wasted.
Thats an interesting analogy that will play well for the general media and the public but it is rather obfustucatory in its simplicity. As you say the airframes themselves seem not to be the problem. Further the idea of new electronics etc in an old airframe is far from a new thing, even if we only look at Australian experience. It can be done quite successfully. There are usually some issues, anything today involves millions of lines of code which has to be written, debugged tec by falible human beings. Still it is not an automatic failure that should be seen as such by all and sundry prior to even considering the option. Hands up anyone who doesn’t think a B-52 with new engines and a new glass cockpit and digital weapons system isn’t a good idea?
What seem to be the issue is the integration of all the various components of the weapons and aircraft control sysyems. If the FLIR can’t talk to the weapons and navigations systems then its useless. If the radar can’t pass on contact information to the weapons then it also so much deadweight. The issue seems to be the integration of the electronics with each other not with the airframe. The analogy muddys the waters.
Personally, I think that a lot of benefit could be derived from simply using advanced versions of older platforms:
and what would the SH-2G(A) be if not an upgraded version of an older platform? A lot of our problems seem to arise from the ADF demanding an Australian specific variant of things. The Tigers were supposed be a MOTS purchase but we wanted extra stuff and now we are having problems with that program too. Who’s to say that Carlo Kopps proposed F-111 upgrades, some Australian AH-1 etc wouldn’t have run inot the same sort of problems. One of the things suggested about the SeaSprites was that shortly after Kaman got the contract they won a huge contract from the US for something else and so they switched the bulk of the staff over to the new, more important project and so the little ADF project suffered. How can we possibly prevent such a thing? Yeah these problems suck, but I don’t really see what alternatives we have much of the time.
Daniel
danrhShorts 184 – Floatplane torpedo bomber – World War I
Royal Air Force had a plan for a Carrier Air Strike on the German Fleet at Anchor in 1918. The end of the War put paid to the Idea.
Cool, did not know that. Could have made Billy Mitchell redundant 🙂
Daniel
danrh– but the OPV was cancelled when Malaysia pulled out (long story, probably best left to Ja to tell)…
Nah there is a very easy, short answer for all question regarding Malaysia-Australia relations. Mahatir Mohamed 😉
Daniel
danrhA 300,000-ton floating dock, the largest of its kind in the world, went into production on Wednesday in northeast China’s coastal city of Dalian.
Developed and built by the COSCO Shipyard Group Co., Ltd, the dock, which is 340 meters long, 76 meters wide and 27 meters deep, is capable of repairing 300,000-ton crude oil carriers, bulk freighters, and container ships, and rebuilding or converting other large watercraft.
source: http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200605/11/eng20060511_264707.html
————————————————————————————–
This is big enough to lift a carrier out of the water and work on it’s undersides, the same thought came to my friend who sent me this article, perhaps China is strategically positioning itself to spring a carrier or three on us in the not to distant future!
Or maybe they are just positioning themselves to build and maintain more “…300,000-ton crude oil carriers, bulk freighters, and container ships…” for all those resources they are buying all over the world.
danrh4.) The SH-2G still isn’t in service? What a clusterf@#k. Those morons in the Navy are brilliant at screwing things up. Not only are these helos expensive, rubbish and not needed (the ship class they were meant to serve off was cancelled) but the RAN have screwed up the Collins class submarine, the ANZAC frigate (required uprading due to insufficient weapons systems) and the LST’s (required significant reconstruction) I wonder how the 3 pointless airdefence destroyers will go? Me thinks it’s time they purged the RAN!
Palerider addressed the other stuff so I won’t bother however
1) Collins class: problems largely the result of the Government (the previous one that is) deciding it wanted to build six big, complex submarines in Australia. Thats a big call. Then you choose a design that basically a sub designed for the Baltic scaled up and have a brand new company build it. Sorry expecting such a program to be smooth sailing is just wishful thinking.
2) ANZAC frigates: these vessels are necessary replacements for old 60s and 70s vessels. Unfortunately at the time the were conceived and contracted the defence budgets were pretty tight so the “fitted for but not with” to allow the RAN to get the ships it needed now and additional weapons sytems for them later. Note that even without the full weapons fit the ANZACs are a significant improvement over the vessels they replaced.
3) LSTs: these vessels were accquired fro the express purpose of rebuilding them to the LPA standard.
I know you like to vent about all things Australian Dubya but could you at least try and be correct before you mouth off. Yes there is Navy oversight of programs but large portions of and blame needs to go to the Governments responsible for contracts and funding and in our case to DMO which does have a less than stellar rep.
Daniel
danrhhttp://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19084426-31477,00.html
Giant of the sky to take on a herculean load for military
Patrick Walters
May 10, 2006
THE RAAF’s new great grey beasts will be able to take off on narrow runways as short as 1000m and ferry tanks, armoured vehicles and even a Chinook helicopter.In December, the RAAF will take delivery of the first of four giant C-17 Globemaster planes in a long-term investment worth $2.2billion. Twelve air force personnel, including pilots and loadmasters, are training at Altus air base in Oklahoma, preparing to bring the first of the planes to their new home.
“It will give us the ability to control our own destiny,” says the RAAF’s director of aerospace development, Air Commodore Chris Deeble.
Costing about $285million each, the C-17s can fly almost 2400 nautical miles (4450km) fully loaded at a cruising speed of 450 knots (830km/h).
The four-engined C-17s will transform the defence force’s heavy-lift capacity, ferrying troops and equipment to war zones as well as conducting humanitarian relief operations.
Until now, the defence force has relied on its C-130 Hercules workhorses and ageing foreign charter aircraft for its main airlift tasks, including the recent army deployment to the Solomons.
Air Commodore Deeble says relief operations that may have taken about 50 C-130 flights over a month will soon be achieved by a C-17 in half the time with perhaps only 20 sorties.
“It just offers us that flexibility that we have never had before,” he says. “And it means we can more effectively utilise the C-130 in the roles they are best at. It gives you a capability to be able to move a lot of outsize cargo – which can’t currently be carried in other military transport – over long distances very, very rapidly.”
The C-17, which carries only three crew, including a loadmaster, can lift about 72,000kg – almost four times that of the Hercules. Each plane can transport five Bushmaster infantry vehicles or three of the army’s Tiger helicopters.
The aircraft has a wingspan of 52m and cargo is loaded through a large rear door.
For heavy airlift of helicopters, trucks, armoured vehicles and essential supplies, the defence force has been spending up to $100million a year on foreign chartered aircraft such as huge Russian Antonovs. According to Defence Minister Brendan Nelson, the reliance on ageing foreign planes has become “completely unacceptable and we are not prepared to do it”.
The C-17 has been in service with the US Air Force since 1995, and the RAAF will become the third air force to fly the plane, along with Britain’s RAF.
The purchase of the C-17s will see a gradual phase-down in the C-130 fleet, with about six of the earlier H models likely to be retired as all four C-17s are delivered by late 2008 as the RAAF acquires new, smaller cargo aircraft.
danrhdanrhIn the advert for Ugroza in Russia’s Arms, they have a drawing showing the weapons use and it includes two things I find interesting. The first is that it depicts the launch aircraft as being an Su-27 type, rather than a helo, which suggests a serious change in role for the Russians… Su-27s in a CAS role with ground forces providing target marking.
Maybe, or perhaps its just for marketing purposes. The Flanker series is probably the best known of Russia’s current prduct range and the -30 models are multirole. If you want to advertise a new product then it makes sense to try and associate it with the biggest success story while showing it taking out the systems of the worlds most powerful military makes similar sense from a sales POV 🙂
Daniel
danrhBecause the contracts require a local lead and ADI and Tennix are the only two games in town really. ADI is already part owned by French interests so its partners were sewn up long ago and the Spanish were the only other folks with a design already (or almost at least) in service.
Daniel
Sign In
