1997 for me. I remember all the rumours of Kidd, Ticonderoga and Spurance transfers also!

I’ve also heard 12 for Holsworthy. It depends on the different mixes quoted. July 2010 is for one in service at sea, with others to follow. You’ve probably already seen MRH90 photos with Army or Navy on the nose….

Oakey is combined Army/Navy training – three of the six naval MRH90 are supposed to be deployed at one time, which doesn’t leave a lot for initial aircrew training.

At least 44 Penguin missiles have been delivered (and in stock a number of years back). At least the MU-90 is a dead cert for some of the European NFH customers. AFAIK The RAN wants medium range (Penguin or similar) and Hellfire missiles.

About the common civilian misconception – during the mid 1990s the Army was actually the worst! You’d remember what a non-event the internal disclosure was when ADF policy changed? LOL

the phalanx barbette houses the transmitter, the transmitter power supply, pneumatic drive power supply, pneumatic electronic control unit, the seawater heat exchanger etc.
so i think it’s save to assume that phalanx only needs a power connector, a seawater connector and a controle console as “off-mount” equipment.

goalkeeper on the other hand needs several off-mount electronic cabinets.

btw. according to thales below deck high is 2800 mm, according to gd it is 2500 mm.

Phalanx needs chilled water and 400 Hz power. It also has some off mount control equipment (this can be anywhere) – this provides maintenance modes, off/on, no fire zones, etc. Also needs reload lockers for 20mm ammunition.

When Phalanx were added to RAN DDG in 1991 it did take a couple of days off around the clock work by welders to fit the system.

When German(?) ships were fitted with an interim Goalkeeper capability these were mounted on top of containers.

BS you Boeing/Lockheed Martin Gatorade drinker/latte sipper! LOL
😉

C-5M with 120 klbs is 5017 nm vice C-5A/B 4157 nm (USA to Middle East in one hop). One flew from Travis AFB, California to Mildenhall AB, UK (4770 nm) with 120 klbs cargo.

At heavier loads the C-5M is actually cheaper $/lb/nm compared with the C-17A.

Again its the old Apples to Oranges comparison – the C-17A can deliver cargo to austere strips and can airdrop troops (its a C-141 replacement with the ability to carry some oversized cargos). It complements the C-5M which will be fine for the really long range, outsized stuff.

1. The options are for F-35A. No official source mentions F-35B. The F-35B is one of the those rumours that refuse to die.

8. Yes the first 6 operational will be go to the RAN – first deployment due July 2010. However the training aircraft are to be delivered first. From 46:
24 with 5 Aviation Regiment (Army) at Townsville.
6? at Holsworthy (Army)?
6 with Navy at Nowra
7 at Oakey for Army/Navy training
3 depot maintenance

9. AFAIK the OPC will be helicopter capable? This would be one reason for increasing helo numbers. There is also the need for more naval aviation in any case. With 16 Seahawk the numbers were (these have changed several times): 6 on ships, 2 shore detachments, 6 training, 2 depot maintenance

The currrent plan is the Seahawk will run onto the retirement of the FFGs and will not undergo a major MLU. Seahawk Capability Assurance (SCAP) 1 will replace some obsolent components (2010/2011). SCAP 2 will do same through end of life (2012/2013) with radar and acoustics. Final retirement is due 2020-2025. MU-90 integration was cancelled June 2008 (although will probably occur in the future?). Penguin msl integration is currently not planned, but would take around 2 years if funded.

The new helos are due to enter service 2017-2019. From 24 AIR 9000 Phase 8 helos – 8+ would deployed (3 Hobart class, 8 Anzac – minus any for maintenance) -I’ve seen 9 ship flights, assuming 2 shore detachments, 6 training this leaves 7 spares (attrition, maintenance, etc).

A decision on AIR 9000 Phase 8 is due ~2015. Its likely to be either NH90 or MH-60R. MH-60R is the stalking horse/fall back. If the naval NH90 runs into problems (they are still struggling with weight and avionics issues), then the MH-60R (easy to integrate) would be selected and the naval NH90 passed to the Army.

ASW is highly perishable skill set, and the surface RAN is currently poorly equipped to deal with submarines.

Agreed on the Ordinary Seaman suggestion. They attempted something similar in the late 1980s during my time in. It worked, but as usual was canned.

In the case of Australia, the original KC-767 (not the current KC-767AT) could not meet the operational requirement of 54500 kg offload at 900 nm with 90 minutes on station:

Retired Boeing 707: 32200 kg offload.
KC-767: 51000 kg offload. Would have meet requirement with aux fuel tanks.
A330-200 MRTT: 78700 kg offload.

The RAAF doctrine will be to not bring back fuel – note how all A330 MRTT and KC-767 can themselves be refueled. Instead transfer the fuel to the relief tanker. The RAAF will also need to refuel the Wedgetail AEW aircraft – mission profiles are 10 hours standard or 16 hours refueled; 8 hours standard or 14 hours refueled at 250-300 nm radius or 2 hours standard or ~8 hours at 1500 nm radius (fleet air defence profile).

Requirement was 200 passengers (KC-767 200, A310 MRTT 330). Other requirements were maintaining 2 fighter CAP at 216 nm and deploying 12 fighters to Butterworth, Malaysia.

The RAAF KC-30A is fitted with Link 16, EW system including LAIRCM. It has provision for a upper deck cargo door, hardened floor (they didn’t want to pay the costs for combi configuration for the then new A330MRTT) and comms relay.

The 5 are planned to provide for 2 deployments of 2 aircraft and 1 spare. The 3 options have lapsed, but might be purchased in the future (however not mentioned in recent plans)

I’m not seeing the less stringent requirement for the RAAF. What was the proposed USAF EW fit? Last I heard the wing hose/drogues were deleted to save money, leaving just the centreline hose.

I wish I’d found the following link a while back. Although some of the sensitive commercial and military information is censored, this shoots down a lot of the ‘informed’ reporting that has appeared in the last 12 months.

http://www.gao.gov/decisions/bidpro/311344.htm