BTW I’ve can’t find any issues with the M1 Abrams purchased by Australia. Further, I believe while secondhand they were rebuilt to New Standards. In addition the Abrams is used by the US Army, USMC, Egypt, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia. It has a proven Combat Record and is consider the Best Tank in the world by many Experts in the Field.

from whay i’ve heard the leopard 2(diesel) is the best tank we only brought M1(gas) only for Compatibly withthe US.

To be honest only C-27 doesn’t seem to really fit with modern Australian ops – it seems to be a hangover from Vietnam.

not true most tactical loads carried by the Aussie C-130’s are between 3-5tons

Well, wrong and right…………..the prewired Super Hornet came after the original contract was signed for the 24 Super Hornet going to the RAAF. Yet, just after that decision it was decided to just procure 12 Growlers instead.

wrong and right only the purchase of the extra aircraft was so that we didn’t lose compacity with the loss of 6 aircrft at a time.

That said, things could be better. Rafale in place of Super Hornet and F-35, more C-130Js + C-27Js (alternatively A400M + C295 combo) and A330s in place of C-17, AAS-72X in place of Tiger, UH-60M over NH90, more Chinooks, fourth AWD, no
Abrams, etc.

no to rafale. A-400 yes, no to C295,keep C-17 C-27J. SH were brought because it was close enough to classic hornet. MRH-90 Taipan will become a good aircraft over time( look at the F111) we are well ahead off ither operators as we have taken ours to sea and they carry more further,yes more chinooks, i would replace FFG’s with 15 DDG’s.

Any top view pleas.i would like to see lay out.I Don’t like the lay out of the Q.E. Class as it doesn’t allow for launch and recovery at the same time.

^ Indeed. As to what the A400M would offer now over the C-130J/C-17 combination: numbers.

Instead of looking at operating four different transport platforms each at anaemic numbers, absolutely terrible in terms of logistics, we could operate three platforms each in greater numbers, with implications for training and maintenance costs, basing flexibility, resilience of capability in the face of combat losses, etc.

The only real loss would be the inability to lift the M1 Abrams. But then guess what else I think we could do without?

I’m not going to defend the MRH-90 acquisition, though. Dumb, dumb, dumb.

have to go back to hiring AN124’s to move our Chinooks without C17’s.can’t move a Chinook with A400m.make the C130’s fatter too. I thought I read an article some about this some time ago.I think the MRH-90/tigers will prove themselves over time.

10 to 15 C-27J’s only few years old great,half price or below great,same as we did with HMAS Choules(RFA Largs Bay)from Britain. 🙂

we have already invested money into F-35 and bought 14 to equip one squadron. we have had to many new aircraft that have been brought early in development stage(F-35, Kc-30,MRH-90,wedgetail) all of which have been delayed by at least 2 years. so we don’t need another one that’s not even off the drawing broad yet.

Does the RAAF have the JASSM in inventory yet? If not, it would pretty much justify the JSOW buy for the F-18F, given it’s a F-111 replacement.

Not sure,has last I heard they test fired one last year.I think it’s has been delayed in to service. I don’t know if it’s in US service yet, no point integrating it onto the SH has the US navy isn’t doing it.The cost would be very high for a system that might not be here in 10 to 15 years.don’t forget there would most likely be delays in the project and we have enough delayed projects as it is.

one sad fact is there will be no more dump& burns at air shows or Brisbane’s River-fire which saw two Pigs come in very low and light the sky which when they pass over head you could see the aircraft almost as clear as day. they come in together then split and head down the river in different directions. then climb out lighting up for miles.