Nothing like a bit of thread drift.
Brian did kick of the Army/RAAF thread which had some interesting reading. As for "Bigotry", it is the pot calling the kettle black. It is a rumour network, if you get a bit of sand in your knickers when somebody has a differing opinion then maybe, think twice before posting.
Yes, yes I know, here come the "Veteran" calls, though there is more than one conflict in the history of helicopter warfare and these "other" conflicts have their Veterans as well, whom are also very experienced Helicopter combat pilots. The non veterans, may not have had the unfortunate or fortunate experience of pure fear mixed with pure elation of combat, this does not mean that their words need to be dismissed. Most will certainly do all of us proud if the government decides to cash their cheque.
Is there a capability gap in troop lift? I guess the obvious answer to that question is yes, given the retirement of an out of life airframe and the slow introduction of another. I am quite sure that the first phase of NH90 purchase by Oz was "additional" troop lift, not a replacement for Blackhawk, I think that was phase 2 or something. Was the Uh1h seen as "Troop Lift" per se, within the Army or merely an LUH? So is there a gap? However, without doubt the lift being provided by civil contractors in the Solomon's is most certainly being done more cheaply than it would have been utilising the retired type. That really is the only theatre that the Iroquois would still be serving in. So, practically not much of a gap there.
S70's are still in service in Aus and none have departed the fleet into retirement as yet, so no gap there. I think that the overall "Deployability into a high threat environment ie: Afghanistan" troop lift really does not have a gap as yet, though on current timelines of S70 withdrawal and NH90 introduction there will be one in the future.
On getting back to the "Why no helo transport?" question, I guess that is a question for the CDF, Defence Minister and PM. Fact is though, there is "Helo transport" in Afghanistan in the guise of the 2 Chinooks. Is that enough, of course not, but there is some there. Could the S70's deploy? I guess they could, as there are other variants in theatre (upgraded uber stealth versions and classic Chevy Pickup types). Not sure of the EWSP fit/capability, maybe that could be stopping them? Or maybe just the Oz government does not see the benefit of sending 5 times the crews and airframes to provide the same "lift" capacity as two chinooks?
Do the soldiers in Afghanistan need more Helo Transport, I would suggest that the answer is definitely yes, not just Australians either. Without doubt road moves increase the exposure to IED's for the guys on the ground, but eventually they have to get out and seize the ground, which they do bloody well
I guess by not having enough "Helo Transport" we are pretty much condemning them to an easy victimology. I am sure they would love their awesome Tigers above them as well, but there is whole separate thread on that topic.
Thanks to the guys for raising the "other" historical facts, albeit from a different and maybe not as air force friendly environment. I have read the links provided and done a bit Googling as well. Nice to hear the other side of the story, I am sure the truth is half way between the two, but without the two sides of the argument (RAAF v Army) it would just be a one sided story.
Doors Off