RAAF C-17s low.

Have there been any announcements about a UK V-22 purchase? There’s a small article to that effect in today’s Times.

Misreading of circumstances (as usual).
UK eyes potential for in-flight refuelling of helicopters (18 January, 2016 )

With the acquisition of a new type, such as the Bell Boeing V-22 tiltrotor, unlikely, [Maj Gen] Felton says the focus is instead on adding range to existing platforms.

This could either be achieved through the installation of internal fuel tanks – with a reduced payload the trade-off – or the addition of in-flight refueling.

Flow on effect of in-flight helicopter refueling is that C-130 fleet will hang around.

USA (F22, F15, F16, F18); wants F-35
UK (Eurofighter, Tornado, Harrier); wants F-35
Italy (Eurofighter, Tornado, Harrier)l wants F-35
Australia (F18, Super Hornet); wants F-35
Netherlands (F16); wants F-35
Norway (F16); wants F-35
Israel (F15, F16); wants F-35
Turkey (F16); wants F-35
South Korea (F-16, F15); wants F-35

RCAF wants F-35.

The core US strategy in the Middle East is somewhat contradictory: protect Israel and protect the Gulf monarchies.

Anyhow the Australian Defence White Paper 2016. RAAF known future inventory isn’t changing much; F-35A, P-8 MPA, MQ-4C Triton, KC-30A, C-27J, EA-18 Growlers, E7 Wedgetail.

Of note:

The Australian DoD has a surprisingly detailed and timely summary of their mission ‘Operation Okra’. No. of sorties, munitions, where and when.

http://www.defence.gov.au/Operations/Okra/atg.asp

… between those that want all American and those that favour European equipment?

The debate in Australia is more about off-the-shelf vs locally industry involvement.

Military chiefs preferred the UH-60M but were overruled by Cabinet who wanted local assembly. ADF direct buys from the US during the past decade through FMS has been relatively trouble free (ie. C-17, Super Hornet, Abrams MBT, CH-47F, MH-60R) while the ‘Euro’ programs have been a mess (Tiger, NH-90, self-propelled howitzers).

More Context: http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/the-curious-case-of-the-mrh90/

The curious case of the MRH90

The idea behind the plan was to reduce the number of types of helicopters in the ADF’s inventory in order to reduce the overall cost of ownership.

… we find the Navy is in the process of taking delivery of 24 new Romeo model Seahawk combat helicopters from the United States, while the Army continues to operate its Black Hawks as DMO and the contractor (Australian Aerospace, a subsidiary of Airbus Helicopters) try to get the MRH90s up to speed. Moreover, Army has a strong preference for retaining the Black Hawk for the counter-terrorism role. (That’s long been the case and the audit report notes the same preference as early as 2004.)

Possibly XM177E2’s left over from war?

But then could’ve been brought recently – spec ops types often have non-standard issue weapons and often of a higher quality than standard units.

Local reproductions called M18s

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?160628-Vietnam-People-s-Army-pictures/page25

could you go into detail why the USAF didn’t feel the C-27j was up to the job?

According to the Pentagon Jan 26 2012:

The C-27J was developed and procured to provide a niche capability to directly support Army urgent needs in difficult environments such as Afghanistan, where we thought the C-130 might not be able to operate effectively … However, in practice, we did not experience the anticipated airfield constraints for C-130 operations in Afghanistan and expect these constraints to be marginal in future scenarios. Since we have ample inventory of C-130s and the current cost to own and operate them is lower, we no longer need nor can we afford a niche capability like the C-27J.

ie “We have helicopters and if an runway is too small for C-130s, we’ll build a bigger one.”

(The US Army doesn’t really do expeditionary airfield construction. Thats in the hands of the USAF and Navy Seabees.)