And given that the F-111 is approaching it’s retirement date in 2010 or even possibly 2008, I don’t think this one will be repaired.

You are probably correct although given comments by Chief of the RAAF in March ie “We need to get out of the F-111 business” might the temporary grounding become permanent?

Well that answers my question… I was going to vote for VF-111 as i used to love photos of their beautifully marked F-4’s from the ’60’s and was wondering are they still around (the unit, not the markings)

As for Oz F-35’s the first unit will be 2 OCU (Operational Conversion Unit) and i dont think we care if its F or F/A either, although i’d be suprised if the RAAF didnt take the ‘official’ USAF name

No, the RAF C-17s have no refuelling probes. Like the USAF C-17s, they are refuelled with the boom system.
I presume, in near future the RAF C-17s along with the RAAF and CAF C-17s might get refuelling probe kits.

Sounds expensive to swap systems for the small amount of RAF (& CAF when ordered) C-17’s. RAAF wouldnt need the kit as our new A330 tankers are (meant) to have a boom centreline/hose wingtip config. 😎

ps while on the Carlo K topic, while you may not agree with what he says, at least he is passionate about Australian military aviation and its future direction which makes a nice change from most media defence ‘experts’….

A few counter-questions/points:

1.) In 2004 how many Sea Kings out of the 7 were actually operational? Total number of airframes and number operational do not mean the same thing. Look at the F-111. The RAAF has 35 airframes, yet only 26 are operational (http://www.raaf.gov.au/organisation/technology/aircraft/f111.htm).

Could be a similar case with the Sea Kings.

2.) The Sea Kings were initially acquired as ASW helos to operate from the aircraft carrier, HMAS Melbourne. They were then replaced by the S-70B in the ASW role. Hence the number of Sea King replacements is not as high as the initial Sea King purchase because the aircraft are being acquired for a different role.

3.) Adding to point 2 is the question: is the Army going to operate MRH-90’s from the LPDs and whatever their replacement is? That is, is Australia heading toweards a Joint Helicopter Force similar to the one used in the UK? It would make sense given the small size of the force.

Some interesting points there.
1. Quite likely given that the SK’s are 30 yo and operate in the most demanding of enviroments. Rule of thumb would suggest 4? out of 7 at any one time.

2. True, but i bet if more money had been available the RAN would’ve liked more used SK’s, esp around the time the two ex USN LST’s (or whatever they are) were purchased.

3. I think i remember reading somewhere a press release about the initial 12 MRH-90’s that said they would be ‘marineised’ for amphib ops, so maybe a UK style JHF is on ADF minds or the army didnt want to rely on RAN SK’s (and after Aceh do you blame them?).
However the RN still have their own helicopters in the UK JHF (Commando SK’s) whereas any such helos for an ADF version would be Army owned, so i think it wise for the RAN to have their own capability as cross service ops usually have ‘ownership’ issues (eg how would Army feel about using ‘its’ MRH-90’s for VERTREP missions?).

All you nautical types please excuse my ignorance (im into the things that sit ON carrier decks) but isnt one a non nuke (CV-63 USS ??) and one a nuke? (CVN-76 Carl Vinson?) so wouldnt the nuke ship woop the conventional ship in a drag race?
I know this is a very important question so if someone could convince USN to remove all aircraft and stage some time trials between its carriers, it would be much appreciated….

what helicopters does the RAN fly?

11 AS350 Squirrels, 11 SH-2G’s (well they dont really fly 🙁 ), 16 S-70B Seahawks and 6 Sea King Mk50’s.

How about 10 Mi-17s or 3 S-70s for the same amount?

Pass / Already have them.