Well, under one condition: EADS CASA needs to improve its service quality with customers. Now is not so good and therefore reliability of aircraft is relatively poor.

I can actually verify that, loot at how many C-235/295’s have crashed in Civilian service, there are more of them falling out of the sky than there are DC-10! And that is saying something!!!

Sammie: mate I remember that article, I think I have it too buried deep in my files. The An-74 is a great plane but considering the plane it relaces in our service runs on standard diesel which can be bought in most locations in the bush where the plane flies. Jets need JP-4 at least and this is more specialised fuel, it’s the same thing for the turbo-prop engines and this has been the main sticking point in finding a replacement for the old Caribou.

Swerve: Yes I do know that mate, but the C-27J is basically a new plane, it is certainly being touted as such.

Con: mate that’s why I said the Dash 8Q, it is still in production and is readily supportable with the QANTAS fleet.

Uni: mate this is what is to be trialed of the back of an Armidale up in the North West Shelf, the General Atomics UAV that is being trialed ios the Mariner (Sea version of the Preditor) and it’s trial is being held at RAAF Edinburgh in South Australia. A lot of people have forgotten the RAN requirement for a UAV to assist in Partol boat duties, but then again I am not suprised as it has been very low key compaired to the RAAF requirement.

We should have looked at acquiring about 48 MRH-90’s to replace the Black Hawk and Sea King.

48 is not enough, I’ve been doing a bit of number crunching and I come out at 58 over the two services (Don’t forget the Army ones are to have some sort of marinisation installed in them as they are to be based on the new LHD’s (12 per ship and I am not talking Navy owned models but Army ones).

Or perhaps we should have gone the Dutch route and looked at massively expanding our CH-47 fleet and acquiring less MRH-90’s. The CH-47 seems to be the helicopter of choice in Afghanistan and Iraq.

More Ch-47’s is not the way to go for the reasons attached in the next comment.

I am curious. You all buy a bunch of stuff from us. It might be me, but isn’t the amount of in country workshare you do on these deals ( fixed wing aircraft, helos, whatever ) rather low? You have multiple shops in-country that do aerospace component work. It seems like there could be more of this work done in Australia when these deals are cut. Am I wrong?

Australia does indeed have a lot of aerospace industry productivity in it, sadly when it comes to American arms, the US wants to manufacture them over there and supply the kits to us mainly to ensure that the American people keep their jobs (quite rightly so- but I’ll end there on politics). The reason we aren’t buying heaps of American equipment is mainly because of that work share, Eurocopter has offered us far more atractive terms including building a factory here in Australia that will supply not only Australia with Tigers, but Global tiger parts as well now as the MRH-90’s and also Civil Eurocopter aircraft for our region. It’s a deal we could not refuse.

No wonder ADF are having problems with these replacement issues, what a can of worms!

It wasn’t ment to be this complicated, AIR 9000 was supposed to cut through most of this in providing a system across the board. The only thing foulling up the works atm is the inter-service rivalry.

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).

Tell this to the Army, it was their money that bought these new helos since they were about to loose some of their Blackhawk fleet.

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.

First of all, let me point out that there will be no interim orders at all! The government and the federal opposition have said NO it anything interim. We either get it or we don’t. Besides, if we did opt for an interim order UH-60’s aren’t the right choice since they are very different machines to our S-70A-9’s and S-70B-2’s. Any interim order should follow what is easily supportable from either other current online equipment or from Civilian equipment in a similar field- to this end, it should be known that both the B412 and the BK-117 are the main workhourses in the paramilitary world down here.

The Huey’s are ok, they can live on a little longer, besides, it’s not like there is a world wide shortage of spares for these great machines. Just get rid of the Blackhawks. (Isn’t it funny, the Blackhawks turned out total garbage but the Seahawk is a powerful and wonderful machine, oh well that’s life).

Anyway getting back on track, give the SOC the UH-1H’s and let the Army carry on with the BH’s for a little longer, then order a dozen or so MRH-90’s as an aditional order for the SOC, this will have the added advantage of giveing the people a moral boost and also keep the workers in their jobs just a little longer (now that is an election winner there 😉 )

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.

It is my understanding that a total of 12 more CH-47’s are to be bought (if the price is right and they are not too far out of place with the current fleet), the reality is more likely to be another 6 with all of them to be upgraded to the latest standards and fitted with a similar decoy system as those fitted on the UK models.

Come on Ja, a little balance please. No Australian government, Coalition or Labour is going to buy Russian etc. Not now and probably not anytime in the next 10-15 years.

Sadly Dan, I know mate. The only reason I keep going on about the Fullback (apart from the RAAF having been to Russia to actually see it in action), is that it is the only plane that is in production that offers a capability jump over what we currently have (see new thread on this matter). All other planes would be a step backwards and the onnes planned are at least 12-15 years away, are we to suffer another capability gap?

There are good reasons not to buy Russian – poor after sales support, poor build quality, and, though potent aircraft, very expensive to run.

You sure on that Ed? I really can’t see Peru complaining or Malaysia or for that mater Ethiopia, none of these countries nor any of the other countries that have Russian equipment have complained about the running costs, If they were so high, would these countries have these planes? I think not. As for the after sales service, Well I have just been reading about Peru’s Sukohi’s and acording to them, they are really happy with everything including the after sales service.

If you really want to replace the F-111, and are determined to go with Russian kit, then look at the Tu-22M!
Reply With Quote

Ed, have you ever thought of getting a job as a stand up comedian? I think you’d be good at that 😉

The best way to go, it´s the finnish way (or the portuguese way, or the jordanian way, or the…), C-295….

Finland has C-295’s? Since when? In anycase as I have said previously, I really am not fussed on which plane wins the competition, I like them both, though there are more 295’s than there are 27’s but that’s only because the Spartan is such a new type on the market. The 295 has been around for years.