Palerider18x C-212/400
Booooooo! Lets get a proper replacement Ja, the C-27J.
– to me Airliners are just big fat targets
You got that right! 😉
Also heres an interesting link regarding thoughts on future ADF helo purchases, as was discussed earlier in this post.
PaleriderNo wonder ADF are having problems with these replacement issues, what a can of worms!
Ok how about this? The 12 MRH-90’s go to the Navy instead, for all the reasons outlined by Ja, so for once the FAA will have the helos it needs BEFORE the ships they are for are delivered (im talking about the yet to be selected amphibious assault/helo carrier type ships).
Then a larger order for more MRH-90’s to be placed ASAP for the Army (the Army have more time to play with for a replacement for their S-70s’ than the Navy does with Sea Kings). A small problem with the above is 171Sq (AAAC) needs to replace its Hueys and is to be reformed as a SOF support Sq (the current plan is for it to get 12 S-70’s the MRH-90’s are replacing). Army could make an interim buy of 12 UH-60A’s & refurb/upgrade them to S-70A-9 standard.
Now as for the ‘boo replacement. Although i still think 12-18 C-27J’s is the way to go, it appears current ADF thinking is leaning toward more CH-47’s instead, which may not be a bad way to go as long as it was a proper number and not another token 4-6.
Paleriderisn’t V-22 much more expensive than C-295/C-27J/AN-72 (they are planes of similar class) ? even USA don’t want buy them in a large numbers.
I would assume so, but as Ja pointed out, about a decade ago it was being considered by the ADF. Technicaly i think its the closest direct Caribou replacement. Supposedly the STOL performance & weight footprint of the Caribou (particularly on boggy forward airfields in the countrys far north during the wet season) cant be matched by anything else. However given the massive problems with the V-22 programe, i think a C-27J purchase would be far less risky (even if not as capable in certain scenarios)
Kinda got off Ja’s original post topic didnt we? 😉
Paleriderdidn’t mean to hijack the thread man, perhaps we can take our Canadian transport rants elsewhere
Contrailjj, dont worry, we can tie this together. The ADF can give info & free rides on the C-17 to CDF and CDF can do the same for the ADF when you guys get your C-115 replacement (which will probably happen while the RAAF is ‘celebrating’ the 50th anniversary of Caribou ops….)
The main thing that has to be acknoledged by the RAAF and the ADF is that nothing around today can do what the Caribou can do sadly, but we must move on.
Very true Ja BUT try telling that to the Army!
As for the eventual replacement its got to be either C-295 or C-27J, used S360’s, C-212’s etc would be nothing but stopgap solution.
ps Just to really upset everyone, dare i suggest V-22? (Hey if others can suggest An-72’s, y not?)
PaleriderInteresting pics SOC, thanks for sharing. NASM, along with AMARC and a Farnbourgh air show, is on my list of ‘one day’ aviation trips (‘one day’ as i live on the other side of the world…)
PaleriderThanks for clearing that up Ja. Obviously Defence Today has better ‘inside’ sources than Aus Aviation magazine (where i got my info on C-17 basing) Anyway i’m happy as Richmond is a lot closer to me than Amberley!
PaleriderExactly Ja, they lose half of their C-130H to make way fro their nice new 4 C-17s.
Daniel
Thats it. With the C-17 flight to go to Amberley. I too was suprised that 36SQ will be the C-17 unit, as 36 has a tactical role. I wouldve thought they would either have gone to 33SQ (B707) or 37SQ (C-130J-30) as both these units have a strategic airlift role (i cant see the RAAF risking its precious C-17’s in too many tactical scenarios). When the first two B707’s were introduced they went to 37 (then operating the C-130E), so there is a precedent to group same role aircraft together in one sqn.
PaleriderSo what do you think the governments chances are for sueing them?
According to a Sydney newspaper article today: “AVM Clive Rossiter told a senate comittee earlier this year that the contract did not have liquidated damage provisions in it, indicating it was negotiated away in exchange for some other benefit”…. So it seems unlikely. I dont think the SH-2’s are going anywhere, its a case of (another) 200 million to fix them or (up to) 1 billion to start again! Not to mention the time factor. Guess which option will get taken up? Im all for scrapping them and getting more S-70’s (dare i suggest, Super Lynx?) but the cheaper option usually wins…and maybe any extra money should be put to fast tracking the Sea King replacement.
PaleriderDidn’t the RAAF get one of the Luftwaffe’s A300 tankers?? (converted at the same time as the Can Force ones I think)
No. EADS did have a A310 fitted with fefuelling boom for ‘proof of concept’. Perhaps thats what you were thinking of?
Btw Great photos guys i thought the first time i saw a photo of an RAAF A330 it would be ex factory in primer. Good work.
PaleriderI’d like to see that myself Ja, but Canberra is a few of hours drive for me too. I assume its at Fairbain (sorry Canberra Airport) for the politicians & ‘brass’ to do the ‘touch & feel’ thing. Whether its in customer markings is interesting and its been done before. ps not quite the same thing but April ’06 edition of Aust Aviation had a photoshopped C-17 on the cover in USAF grey with 36SQ markings
PaleriderInteresting developments in the RAAF!
I am curious about several things:
1.) Once the F-111’s are gone in 2010, the Australian air combat capability will be limited to 71 F/A-18’s. So how many F-35’s will the RAAF acquire to recapitalise it’s fighter fleet?
2.) Once the C-17 enters service, will they be operated in a joint C-17A/C-130H squadron or will the remaining 6 C-130H’s be assigned to a new squadron (a total of 12 C-130H’s were delieverd to the RAAF)?
3.) I know that they delayed replacing the DHC-4 Caribou but will this replacement go ahead or will the Caribou simply be retired without replacement?
4.) 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!
1) The figure talked about is usually ‘up to 100’ (whatever that means). Currently there are 5 ‘fast jet’ squadrons (2 F-111, 3 F/A-18) + an OCU. My guess is F-35’s will operate from Tindal AB & Williamtown AB (currently Hornet bases) with Amberley becoming the airlift MOB. As Williamtown is already pretty busy you may see Amberleys 2 squadrons reform at Tindal.
2) According to AA magazine (Apr 06) the C-17’s will be operated in a joint squadron (36SQ)
3) Thats the $64 question! According to the Minister for Defence (Apr 09) “Building on the Government’s recent decision to acquire a heavy airlift capability, the plan retains around $1 billion to refurbish or replace the C-130H Hercules and Caribou aircraft fleets.” (from Defenceaerospace.com) So maybe if the RAAF doesnt refurb the ‘H’s’ (they are 1977 models) both will be replaced by one type?
4) While its hard to defend a lot of aspects of the SH-2 project you are partly wrong
Not only are these helos expensive, rubbish and not needed (the ship class they were meant to serve off was cancelled)
as the ships they were meant for were NOT cancelled and these frigates most certainly DO need them! One of the main avionics contractors going bust didnt help a lot either and when they (eventually) become operational they will be a lot more use than the brand new but ‘bare bones’ SH-2’s of the RNZAF! Chalk it up to ‘seemed like a good idea at the time’ syndrome (maybe new build Super Lynx dont seem so expensive after all!)
ps Dont be so hard on the navy, as now the army is having development troubles with the Tiger (maybe the RAAF knew what it was doing when it got out of the helo ‘business’ 😉 )
PaleriderA few points on the RAAF C-17 purchase: the order is for 3 + 1 option (likely to be taken up) and will be used by 36sq. This unit currently is based at Richmond AB & has 12 C-130H’s, 6 of which are to be retired, and the unit will relocate to Amberley AB sometime after 2008 (According to Australian Aviation magazine) This looks like the writing on the wall for Richmond as the A330 tankers are to be based at Amberley and they will probably move the the other Herc squadron (37) there too. (Amberley will have plenty of ramp space once the F-111’s are retired…)
As to the how the RAAF will take delivery so fast, Boeing is starting to wind up production so they had ‘spare’ spots on the line, and the USAF seem to have a flexible delivery schedule as it has had the bulk of its C-17’s delivered, so it was a ‘now or never’ deal. Finally to those who ponder why the the Antonov wasnt chosen, simply, the RAAF didnt want it! Ive read that the ADF were reluctant to put its personel on some of them when transporting equipment around due to safety concerns and the big russkie doesnt have a guaranteed support base nor does it score highly for interoprabilty with US forces both of which are important to the ADF.
Paleriderer… by the way Berlusconi, should you not change your name and image to Prodi by now….;-)
I was wondering about that too….
Errr, don’t think that is what I would call hot
You are a hard man to please flex, she works for me….(maybe i should change pubs :p )
btw getting back on topic I agree with those who have said the Ukraine will probably go the upgrade. It just wouldnt be worth the hassle for them to go western. If the Ukraine wants to buy new im sure the russian av industry will be churning out “new” versions of the Su-27/30/etc/etc family for quite a while yet as there isnt any money to develop anything else. And if all your support infastructure is geared up for russian aircraft….
PaleriderRelief and aid operations certainly take on a different twist – but how much of that is PR? Someone somewhere gets a warm fuzzy when watching the news and see their flag on a chopper in a disaster zone
Very good point, i used the Oz army Blackhawk example mainly because it was the last time i can remember any ADF aircraft with high viz markings! On the subject of high viz markings, a high point was the USN Vietnam era aircraft (IMHO)
PaleriderOne way to look at it, the roundel has outlived its original purpose. The need for visual recognition has passed – anymore, roundels, cockades, flashes etc., are minor bits of ‘bling’ that excite us, the enthusiats. Technology has made the national marking redundant – IFF systems, radar, bvr missiles, etc. Even the tail code is an irrelevant tradition – with the a/c serial stenciled somewhere it can be read by the people who need to read it – the erks.
Don’t get me wrong – I love the markings and colours, unfortunately I think we may have to someday face the inevitable… national markings may simply disappear, replaced by a small stencil somewhere that simply states… owner, designation, serial… or even a bar code!
Just some thoughts.
JJ
The bar code is an interesting (if depressing) idea. While you are probably right i’ve often thought that with technology making even low viz markings redundant, it could mean the opposite, and a return to high viz markings, for ID by other allied forces in multinational ops (see below)
anyone remember the Lynx during Desert Storm with the great big ruddy Union Jack on the sides and underneath???
Australian army Blackhawk’s had something similar while operating in Pakistan on relief missions, a large national flag on each engine in addition to the usual low viz ‘black rat’ (small black kangaroo on the tailboom). Maybe ‘high viz’ making a comeback?
Sign In
