Australian Army to get more Chinooks (-F's)
Thread Starter
Australian Army to get more Chinooks (-F's)
Australia - CH-47F Chinook Helicopters
(Washington, April 23, 2009) -- On April 13 the Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) notified Congress of a possible Foreign Military Sale to the Government of Australia of seven CHINOOK Helicopters and other related equipment, services and support. The estimated cost is $560 Million.
The Government of Australia has requested a possible sale of seven CH-47F CHINOOK Helicopters with 14 (2 per aircraft) T55-GA-714A Turbine engines, 7 M134D Dillon Aero Miniguns, 16 AN/ARC-201D Single Channel Ground and Airborne Radios (SINCGARS), 7 Force XXI Battle Command Brigade and Below Blue Force Trackers (FBCB2/BFT), 2 spare T-55-GA-714A Turbine engines, mission equipment, communication and navigation equipment, ground support equipment, spare and repair parts, special tools and test equipment, technical data and publications, personnel training and training equipment, contractor technical and logistics personnel services, and other related elements of logistics support. The estimated cost is $560 million.
Australia is one of our most important allies in the Western Pacific. The strategic location of this political and economic power contributes significantly to ensuring peace and economic stability in the region. Australia's efforts in peacekeeping and humanitarian operations in Iraq and in Afghanistan have had a significant impact on regional political and economic stability and have served U.S. national security interests. This proposed sale is consistent with those objectives and facilitates burden sharing with our allies.
The proposed sale of the CH-47F CHINOOK helicopters and components to Australia will contribute to U.S. security objectives by providing a coalition partner with significantly improved airlift capability. This will improve the Royal Australian Army's ability to participate in coalition operations, enhance the capacity of Australia's Defense Forces to provide lift for ground forces and supplies in support of humanitarian assistance/disaster relief, and to contribute to stability operations in the Asia-Pacific region. Australia will have no difficulty absorbing these helicopters into its armed forces.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
Company Center : Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA)
(Washington, April 23, 2009) -- On April 13 the Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) notified Congress of a possible Foreign Military Sale to the Government of Australia of seven CHINOOK Helicopters and other related equipment, services and support. The estimated cost is $560 Million.
The Government of Australia has requested a possible sale of seven CH-47F CHINOOK Helicopters with 14 (2 per aircraft) T55-GA-714A Turbine engines, 7 M134D Dillon Aero Miniguns, 16 AN/ARC-201D Single Channel Ground and Airborne Radios (SINCGARS), 7 Force XXI Battle Command Brigade and Below Blue Force Trackers (FBCB2/BFT), 2 spare T-55-GA-714A Turbine engines, mission equipment, communication and navigation equipment, ground support equipment, spare and repair parts, special tools and test equipment, technical data and publications, personnel training and training equipment, contractor technical and logistics personnel services, and other related elements of logistics support. The estimated cost is $560 million.
Australia is one of our most important allies in the Western Pacific. The strategic location of this political and economic power contributes significantly to ensuring peace and economic stability in the region. Australia's efforts in peacekeeping and humanitarian operations in Iraq and in Afghanistan have had a significant impact on regional political and economic stability and have served U.S. national security interests. This proposed sale is consistent with those objectives and facilitates burden sharing with our allies.
The proposed sale of the CH-47F CHINOOK helicopters and components to Australia will contribute to U.S. security objectives by providing a coalition partner with significantly improved airlift capability. This will improve the Royal Australian Army's ability to participate in coalition operations, enhance the capacity of Australia's Defense Forces to provide lift for ground forces and supplies in support of humanitarian assistance/disaster relief, and to contribute to stability operations in the Asia-Pacific region. Australia will have no difficulty absorbing these helicopters into its armed forces.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
Company Center : Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA)
Otherwise known as "Caribou Replacement Plan - This week-"...........
Hope they keep the D's and the F's (total 13) as well.......
Shades of operating 12 C's....... de ja vu perhaps?
Hope they keep the D's and the F's (total 13) as well.......
Shades of operating 12 C's....... de ja vu perhaps?
or 
!!
support of humanitarian assistance/disaster relief
At least they will have something they can send to the 'stan with a reduced risk of spontaneous mid-air combustion
Honestly, I have not seen it in the last Ten years or so. Not in the southern half of the country anyway.
For the large number of assets they have, they seem to be underepresented.
I flew in the 1998 Sydney to Hobart rescue operation and remember the large committment the RAN made, and to the Bushfire situation in Sydney before that. I also remember Nyngan in about 1987~. I can't think of anything recent where they have deployed large numbers of rescources.
For the large number of assets they have, they seem to be underepresented.
I flew in the 1998 Sydney to Hobart rescue operation and remember the large committment the RAN made, and to the Bushfire situation in Sydney before that. I also remember Nyngan in about 1987~. I can't think of anything recent where they have deployed large numbers of rescources.
Honestly, I have not seen it in the last Ten years or so. Not in the southern half of the country anyway.
For the large number of assets they have, they seem to be underepresented.
I flew in the 1998 Sydney to Hobart rescue operation and remember the large committment the RAN made, and to the Bushfire situation in Sydney before that. I also remember Nyngan in about 1987~. I can't think of anything recent where they have deployed in numbers.
For the large number of assets they have, they seem to be underepresented.
I flew in the 1998 Sydney to Hobart rescue operation and remember the large committment the RAN made, and to the Bushfire situation in Sydney before that. I also remember Nyngan in about 1987~. I can't think of anything recent where they have deployed in numbers.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney Australia
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They certainly did do some good work after Larry. And so they should have since they had so many assets so close by. Although I wouldn't trust much written in The Army (the propaganda paper). When posted to a squadron a few years ago I remember sitting on the ground while firefighters battled bushfires all around us. Holsworthy was nearly burned out (4 RAR carpark and Tpt went up) and still there was no call.
They are still under-utilised. Where were they during the recent fires? There is a whole squadron of Blackhawks in Sydney.
I can't believe the government can fund the purchase of 7 helicopters for $770 million
but can't fully fund RFDS, or provide full time SAR services across this vast country or utilise the ADF for the majority of SAR and disaster relief tasks.
They are still under-utilised. Where were they during the recent fires? There is a whole squadron of Blackhawks in Sydney.
I can't believe the government can fund the purchase of 7 helicopters for $770 million
but can't fully fund RFDS, or provide full time SAR services across this vast country or utilise the ADF for the majority of SAR and disaster relief tasks.
Has anyone ever seen Army helos doing this in Australia? Honestly. Were any present during the Vic bushfires?
I'm sure nobody disputes that aid to the civil community should be undertaken where appropriate, but sometimes it's not as clear cut as it seems. Using the ADF for surge capability when emergency services can't cope is OK, but it's not their primary job (as much as it can be good work, and valuable training).
The real questions are:
How much taxpayer-funded equipment and personnel are we willing to pay for to have sitting around waiting for natural disasters to happen, and, if that's not sufficient, how much degradation of primary ADF roles are we willing to accept to have them responding to these occurrences?
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trojan,
I remember a yacht rescue in Cairns a while back where we had the range to fly out and effect the rescue however the local rescue chopper didn't. An S70 went flew out and positioned fuel on an outer island so the civil chopper could refuel then conduct the rescue and get their sponsors logo on TV.
I flicked through my logbooks and have about 800hrs S70 humanitarian tasking spread across Australia, PNG, Solomons etc.
The phrase '**** Loads' comes to mind.
tsalta
I remember a yacht rescue in Cairns a while back where we had the range to fly out and effect the rescue however the local rescue chopper didn't. An S70 went flew out and positioned fuel on an outer island so the civil chopper could refuel then conduct the rescue and get their sponsors logo on TV.
I flicked through my logbooks and have about 800hrs S70 humanitarian tasking spread across Australia, PNG, Solomons etc.
The phrase '**** Loads' comes to mind.
tsalta
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Twilight Zone
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tsalta,
settle pettle. The army have performed many humanitarian sorties with the S70 and Huey, many without fanfare as Defence are not the media tarts that private enterprise needs to be. EMS rotary out of Cairns and Townsville are all Government owned and Horn government funded ie no sponsors names on machines and Mackay until recently also ran with no sponsor name as it relied on coalfield companies contributions.
Arm out of the window has it right when he says it is not Defences primary focus. Problem evolved when 9 returned from Vietnam where it was intensely utilised with highly experienced crew who now had limited opportunities (Sinai excepted) and no community helicopters existed and commercial helicopters were rare. 9 and 5 recieved lots of media coverage due to the new aspect of rescue presented with this flying platform. Prior to handover to the ARMY (despite 3 enquiries recommending Air Force retention), Air Force refocused rotary assets on military activities in early 80's.
We then saw the formation of the infamous National Safety Council and Labor had a policy of a US style Coastguard. Australia is now well covered with both commercial rotary and fixed rescue platforms.
settle pettle. The army have performed many humanitarian sorties with the S70 and Huey, many without fanfare as Defence are not the media tarts that private enterprise needs to be. EMS rotary out of Cairns and Townsville are all Government owned and Horn government funded ie no sponsors names on machines and Mackay until recently also ran with no sponsor name as it relied on coalfield companies contributions.
Arm out of the window has it right when he says it is not Defences primary focus. Problem evolved when 9 returned from Vietnam where it was intensely utilised with highly experienced crew who now had limited opportunities (Sinai excepted) and no community helicopters existed and commercial helicopters were rare. 9 and 5 recieved lots of media coverage due to the new aspect of rescue presented with this flying platform. Prior to handover to the ARMY (despite 3 enquiries recommending Air Force retention), Air Force refocused rotary assets on military activities in early 80's.
We then saw the formation of the infamous National Safety Council and Labor had a policy of a US style Coastguard. Australia is now well covered with both commercial rotary and fixed rescue platforms.
Thread Starter
Legally, the ADF is responsible for SAR of ADF ships, aircraft etc & visiting foreign military ships & aircraft within the Australian region - but not for civilian ops. Civilian SAR operations are conducted by a Federal Government department using whatever assets they have at their disposal and if the nature of the rescue is such that military assets are better equipped to perform the task, then there is a process for assistance to be requested from the ADF. I suspect that in the case of the Victorian Bushfires, the ADF helicopters were not appropriately equipped so their assistance was not requested.
Does anyone know if the existing 6 "D" model Chinooks will be retained & if so, will they be upgraded to "F" standard?
Does anyone know if the existing 6 "D" model Chinooks will be retained & if so, will they be upgraded to "F" standard?
You say that ADF aircraft may not be properly equipped, Why not? It doesn't take much. I have flown on SAR sorties in a Partenavia equiped with nothing more specialised than an EPIRB homer, smokes and a liferaft; and found the target when an Orion couldn't. In the US the National Guard conduct firefighting and disaster releif sorties.
The NSCA is gone, without replacement, and we still have no coastguard. I can't agree with that last line. 4-5 Dorniers for the whole country. No other organisations are accredited as the govt has put all their eggs in the one basket.
Don't get me wrong, I think the additional capability is required but $770 million is a lot of money for the taxpayer to shell out considering that these aircraft are probably going to be sent to Afghanistan.
Or indeed waiting for foreign wars to happen? I think most taxpayers would prefer the option that might help them.
We then saw the formation of the infamous National Safety Council and Labor had a policy of a US style Coastguard. Australia is now well covered with both commercial rotary and fixed rescue platforms.
Don't get me wrong, I think the additional capability is required but $770 million is a lot of money for the taxpayer to shell out considering that these aircraft are probably going to be sent to Afghanistan.
How much taxpayer-funded equipment and personnel are we willing to pay for to have sitting around waiting for natural disasters to happen, and, if that's not sufficient, how much degradation of primary ADF roles are we willing to accept to have them responding to these occurrences?
Thread Starter
You say that ADF aircraft may not be properly equipped, Why not?
Nunc est bibendum
How much taxpayer-funded equipment and personnel are we willing to pay for to have sitting around waiting for natural disasters to happen, and, if that's not sufficient, how much degradation of primary ADF roles are we willing to accept to have them responding to these occurrences?
I wonder if flying low level, poor vis, in uncomfortable and dangerous wind conditions around bush fires would be of any benefit to a crew member who finds himself in low level, poor viz and uncomfortable and dangerous wind conditions in Afghanistan?
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 347
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think it's the flying the guys need practice with it's avoiding the supersonic bits of lead that probably keeps them most occupied. In that respect bush fires and Afghanistan are quite different.
Last edited by ernestkgann; 1st May 2009 at 09:18.