RAAF to get another C17 Globemaster III
David,
A well planned and executed surprise attack will, similar to Pearl Harbour for eg catch the target off guard and would result in the destruction of most air assets of every type on the ground.
If a possible outbreak of hostilities has resulted in elevated threat levels then you would hope that would not be the case but like at Pearl, a raised threat level was still insufficient to prevent overwhelming losses when the attack came.
The Israeli Airforce Attack in 1967's 6 day war wiped out almost the entire Egyptian air force on the ground as well as badly mauling those of Syria and Jordan in the first day!!
After six days of fighting Israel claimed a total of 452 Arab aircraft destroyed, of which 49 were aerial victories.
Most of the worlds military planners in nations everywhere are stuck in a mindset of WW 2 style era conflict.
IE-that any initial losses will be made up and replaced over a given time period during a prolonged conflict and the nations forces will fight on and hopefully eventually prevail. (Conventional conflicts only.ie Non nuclear )
This is totally wrong in the modern era with modern weapons and technology.
Most countries with small to medium size military forces , including Australia could see almost their entire navy or airforce literally wiped out in as little as a few hours or a single day of high intensity battle,especially if attacked by a country with far larger forces and equal or better technological capability.
A naval flotilla / battle group or an entire squadron of fighters/attack aircraft can easily be lost in an hour.
Once gone in a such a short time the nation may be totally defenceless without aid from other allied nations (who may also be under attack). So tens or hundreds of billions of dollars worth of air and naval assets that took decades to acquire can be lost in hours or a day or 2.
Ground forces of course face similar quick destruction especially without air superiority being held over the battlefield. Many historical eg of that scenario too.
A single ship or aircraft costs a huge amount of money compared to an armies most expensive individual weapons system which is likely a tank or mobile artillery system.
No one likes to think of such scenarios being possible so they don't. ( heads in the sand??)
No one wants to hear that their nations defence force which cost tens or hundreds of billions of dollars and decades to build can literally be wiped out in a few hours or days or maybe weeks at most given the right battle scenarios.
A well planned and executed surprise attack will, similar to Pearl Harbour for eg catch the target off guard and would result in the destruction of most air assets of every type on the ground.
If a possible outbreak of hostilities has resulted in elevated threat levels then you would hope that would not be the case but like at Pearl, a raised threat level was still insufficient to prevent overwhelming losses when the attack came.
The Israeli Airforce Attack in 1967's 6 day war wiped out almost the entire Egyptian air force on the ground as well as badly mauling those of Syria and Jordan in the first day!!
After six days of fighting Israel claimed a total of 452 Arab aircraft destroyed, of which 49 were aerial victories.
Most of the worlds military planners in nations everywhere are stuck in a mindset of WW 2 style era conflict.
IE-that any initial losses will be made up and replaced over a given time period during a prolonged conflict and the nations forces will fight on and hopefully eventually prevail. (Conventional conflicts only.ie Non nuclear )
This is totally wrong in the modern era with modern weapons and technology.
Most countries with small to medium size military forces , including Australia could see almost their entire navy or airforce literally wiped out in as little as a few hours or a single day of high intensity battle,especially if attacked by a country with far larger forces and equal or better technological capability.
A naval flotilla / battle group or an entire squadron of fighters/attack aircraft can easily be lost in an hour.
Once gone in a such a short time the nation may be totally defenceless without aid from other allied nations (who may also be under attack). So tens or hundreds of billions of dollars worth of air and naval assets that took decades to acquire can be lost in hours or a day or 2.
Ground forces of course face similar quick destruction especially without air superiority being held over the battlefield. Many historical eg of that scenario too.
A single ship or aircraft costs a huge amount of money compared to an armies most expensive individual weapons system which is likely a tank or mobile artillery system.
No one likes to think of such scenarios being possible so they don't. ( heads in the sand??)
No one wants to hear that their nations defence force which cost tens or hundreds of billions of dollars and decades to build can literally be wiped out in a few hours or days or maybe weeks at most given the right battle scenarios.
Last edited by aussie027; 23rd Sep 2011 at 08:04.
Australia's greatest defence against a surprise attack is the tyranny of distance. You would need carrier based air assets to destroy Australian aircraft that are still primarily based in our south. Small carriers with defensive VTOL fighters would not cut it either- so nobody other than the US, France and Britain has that capability at the moment.
A more likely scenario is terrorist attacks on our military assets involving loss of life and loss of expensive equipment. Australian bases are poorly defended against this type of attack. Or, in a regional scenario, surprise attacks by unconventional ground troops on our northern bases - Tindal, Darwin, JORN etc. These would be difficult to defend against without intelligence heightening readiness.
Personally, I believe our defence forces are a basket case. Poor procurement decisions, leadership failures, civilian bureaucracy gone mad and unrealistic threat analysis driving wildly ambitious force structures. For instance, the RAAF says we must have 100 JSF aircraft to defend ourselves with, yet we make do for a decade with under 60-70.
The last thing we need is masses of American troops based on our soil with the social problems that brings. However, our military leadership has left us paying huge sums of money for a relatively ineffective defence force. Bring the Americans here and simplify our procurement and structural ambitions. Buy what they have in service for our own services and drag their forces south into our immediate region. Very cheap defence.
A more likely scenario is terrorist attacks on our military assets involving loss of life and loss of expensive equipment. Australian bases are poorly defended against this type of attack. Or, in a regional scenario, surprise attacks by unconventional ground troops on our northern bases - Tindal, Darwin, JORN etc. These would be difficult to defend against without intelligence heightening readiness.
Personally, I believe our defence forces are a basket case. Poor procurement decisions, leadership failures, civilian bureaucracy gone mad and unrealistic threat analysis driving wildly ambitious force structures. For instance, the RAAF says we must have 100 JSF aircraft to defend ourselves with, yet we make do for a decade with under 60-70.
The last thing we need is masses of American troops based on our soil with the social problems that brings. However, our military leadership has left us paying huge sums of money for a relatively ineffective defence force. Bring the Americans here and simplify our procurement and structural ambitions. Buy what they have in service for our own services and drag their forces south into our immediate region. Very cheap defence.
Last edited by Gnadenburg; 23rd Sep 2011 at 12:48.
Surely "twice the distance in three quarters of the time" would require a speed of 2.66 x the Herc's 290kt cruise speed rather than the C17's 450kt?
AOTW: er...then they would be both be flying the same distance.
Presumably what they actually mean is that the C17 can fly twice as far long haul or do short sectors in 25% less time. Still, forget the arithmetic & economics..they obviously like the C17 so let's give them another one!
Presumably what they actually mean is that the C17 can fly twice as far long haul or do short sectors in 25% less time. Still, forget the arithmetic & economics..they obviously like the C17 so let's give them another one!
I hear that we are solving our transport problems by buying 100 surplus B52 aircraft and converting them to freighters at Avalon...
Well it worked so well last time........
Well it worked so well last time........
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Oz
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C-27Js are coming but there is still work to be done. Despite Airbus's desire for a competition for its C295, it's not the right airplane.
One or two more KC-30s would be nice, but we haven't got the manpower allowance for it, and with government wanting to return to surplus next year, it aint gonna happen in the short term.
One or two more KC-30s would be nice, but we haven't got the manpower allowance for it, and with government wanting to return to surplus next year, it aint gonna happen in the short term.
One or two more KC-30s would be nice, but we haven't got the manpower allowance for it, and with government wanting to return to surplus next year, it aint gonna happen in the short term.
Considering the number of ex-RAAF personnel with so much experience on the Airbus, this is the ideal operation to expand with Reservists.
Politically, there are good reasons to go long on our tankers ( if they are any good ). Even if it means a sacrifice in the number of tactical fighters finally procured. Tankers are a very useful commitment to any Allied air campaign. They lack the political visibility of fighters, lending toward left-leaning governments to participate more willingly in future conflicts, and they cost a lot less than deploying fighters or maintaining our fighter fleets to be immediately capable of participating in a modern air campaign.
Last edited by Gnadenburg; 25th Sep 2011 at 03:09.
RAAF KC-30 and C-17's should have a large AF reserve element supporting them as is in the USAF with ANG and AF Reserve squadrons being integrated into their wings of KC-135/KC-10 and C-17 units [don't mention fighters/bombers and everything else flown by the Guard etc]...
There's a problem with that though...
Gnads & TBM...
In the USA, military reservist flight time is a national matter and, I've been told by someone who used to do it, separate from FAA flight time limitations; individuals manage their 'fatigue' but the employer doesn't, in a legal sense, have to worry about it so to speak.
but...
At present a pilot's 'RAAF reservist' hours count against his/her CAO hours and no company in Oz is going to happily forego pilot utilisation just because an employee racked up some hours in the national interest. KC-30s and C-17s, or anything 'civvy-equivalent' for that matter, do long flights which would unavoidably impact CAO limits, and for a reservist to drop rostered civilian hours for reservist pay is, I imagine, a big pay drop and therefore unlikely to be appealing. (everyone has a mortgage/kids/alimony/etc!)
I see the need for a scheme where government and industry agree that reservists:
- may serve for agreed blocks of time (eg month-on, month-off),
- receive 'top-up' pay to cater for that lost due to being unavailable to their primary civilian employer, and
- the employer receives compensation for the need to train additional staff to cater for reservists' absences (I believe this part already happens).
I've also heard that the RAAF may even consider non-RAAF-trained pilots for some of these type of jobs; why shouldn't a qualified VB or QF 737 pilot crew BBJ VIP flights? Time, and any manpower shortages, will tell if the latter comes to pass.
In the USA, military reservist flight time is a national matter and, I've been told by someone who used to do it, separate from FAA flight time limitations; individuals manage their 'fatigue' but the employer doesn't, in a legal sense, have to worry about it so to speak.
but...
At present a pilot's 'RAAF reservist' hours count against his/her CAO hours and no company in Oz is going to happily forego pilot utilisation just because an employee racked up some hours in the national interest. KC-30s and C-17s, or anything 'civvy-equivalent' for that matter, do long flights which would unavoidably impact CAO limits, and for a reservist to drop rostered civilian hours for reservist pay is, I imagine, a big pay drop and therefore unlikely to be appealing. (everyone has a mortgage/kids/alimony/etc!)
I see the need for a scheme where government and industry agree that reservists:
- may serve for agreed blocks of time (eg month-on, month-off),
- receive 'top-up' pay to cater for that lost due to being unavailable to their primary civilian employer, and
- the employer receives compensation for the need to train additional staff to cater for reservists' absences (I believe this part already happens).
I've also heard that the RAAF may even consider non-RAAF-trained pilots for some of these type of jobs; why shouldn't a qualified VB or QF 737 pilot crew BBJ VIP flights? Time, and any manpower shortages, will tell if the latter comes to pass.
Thread Starter
Stephen Smith must have read my earlier post!
Sixth C-17A Globemaster III - Letter of Request
Minister for Defence Stephen Smith announced today that Australia is investigating the purchase of a sixth C-17A Globemaster III heavy-lift aircraft.
Australia has sent a Letter of Request to the United States regarding the potential purchase of an additional C-17A aircraft through the United States Foreign Military Sales program, formally seeking cost and availability information.
A sixth C-17 would give the Government increased options to support a wider range of contingencies that might require heavy-lift aircraft. Advice from Defence is that a sixth aircraft would double the number of C-17A aircraft available for operations at any one time compared to four aircraft.
Minister Smith made this announcement at the Amberley Air Force Base today at the ceremony marking the arrival into Australia of the Royal Australian Air Force's fifth C-17A.
The acquisition of the fifth C-17A was announced by the Government on 1 March this year and was confirmed in the 2011-12 Budget.
On 14 September, Minister Smith took delivery of the fifth C-17A Globemaster III at Boeing's Long Beach production facility near Los Angeles.
The Royal Australian Air Force's five C-17A aircraft were delivered over the period 2006 to 2011. The first of these became operational in 2007, providing the Australian Defence Force with a global airlift capability.
The addition of the fifth aircraft to the Air Force's fleet will expand Australia's capacity to deploy personnel and equipment rapidly all around the world.
The C‑17A aircraft can lift very large and heavy cargoes over long distances providing a significant contribution to Australia's ability to reach and respond to events. One C‑17A can carry up to four C-130 Hercules loads in a single lift and cover twice the distance in three-quarters of the time of a C‑130.
Events in Queensland, Christchurch and Japan earlier this year underlined the C‑17s as an essential part of Australia's capacity to respond to natural disasters both within Australia and within our region.
The ability of C-17s to move equipment and people played a vital role in the aftermath of Cyclone Yasi in north Queensland in February, helping to transport ADF personnel and civilians and airlifting more than 320 tonnes of cargo, including more than 200 tonnes of food supplies. C-17s also helped evacuate to safety in Brisbane more than 250 patients from Cairns Hospital and Cairns Private Hospital.
C-17s also delivered much-needed equipment, stores and emergency services personnel to New Zealand in the wake of the terrible February earthquake in Christchurch and returned more than 100 Australian civilians to Australia.
In March, following the earthquake and tsunami in Japan, C-17s moved more than a million pounds (450 tonnes) of cargo, including 41 vehicles, as well as 135 passengers as part of Australia's relief efforts in Japan. At one stage during the relief operation, Australia had three C-17 aircraft in Japan providing humanitarian assistance and disaster-relief support.
While disaster relief has been a recent public focus for C-17 operations, they also continue to support Australian and International Security Assistance Forces in Afghanistan and the Middle East, meeting their primary purpose in providing military long-range heavy airlift.
Following receipt of cost and availability information from the United States, the Government will make a decision about the purchase based on capability, cost and schedule assessments of the sixth C‑17A.
Source : MoD Australia ASD news
Minister for Defence Stephen Smith announced today that Australia is investigating the purchase of a sixth C-17A Globemaster III heavy-lift aircraft.
Australia has sent a Letter of Request to the United States regarding the potential purchase of an additional C-17A aircraft through the United States Foreign Military Sales program, formally seeking cost and availability information.
A sixth C-17 would give the Government increased options to support a wider range of contingencies that might require heavy-lift aircraft. Advice from Defence is that a sixth aircraft would double the number of C-17A aircraft available for operations at any one time compared to four aircraft.
Minister Smith made this announcement at the Amberley Air Force Base today at the ceremony marking the arrival into Australia of the Royal Australian Air Force's fifth C-17A.
The acquisition of the fifth C-17A was announced by the Government on 1 March this year and was confirmed in the 2011-12 Budget.
On 14 September, Minister Smith took delivery of the fifth C-17A Globemaster III at Boeing's Long Beach production facility near Los Angeles.
The Royal Australian Air Force's five C-17A aircraft were delivered over the period 2006 to 2011. The first of these became operational in 2007, providing the Australian Defence Force with a global airlift capability.
The addition of the fifth aircraft to the Air Force's fleet will expand Australia's capacity to deploy personnel and equipment rapidly all around the world.
The C‑17A aircraft can lift very large and heavy cargoes over long distances providing a significant contribution to Australia's ability to reach and respond to events. One C‑17A can carry up to four C-130 Hercules loads in a single lift and cover twice the distance in three-quarters of the time of a C‑130.
Events in Queensland, Christchurch and Japan earlier this year underlined the C‑17s as an essential part of Australia's capacity to respond to natural disasters both within Australia and within our region.
The ability of C-17s to move equipment and people played a vital role in the aftermath of Cyclone Yasi in north Queensland in February, helping to transport ADF personnel and civilians and airlifting more than 320 tonnes of cargo, including more than 200 tonnes of food supplies. C-17s also helped evacuate to safety in Brisbane more than 250 patients from Cairns Hospital and Cairns Private Hospital.
C-17s also delivered much-needed equipment, stores and emergency services personnel to New Zealand in the wake of the terrible February earthquake in Christchurch and returned more than 100 Australian civilians to Australia.
In March, following the earthquake and tsunami in Japan, C-17s moved more than a million pounds (450 tonnes) of cargo, including 41 vehicles, as well as 135 passengers as part of Australia's relief efforts in Japan. At one stage during the relief operation, Australia had three C-17 aircraft in Japan providing humanitarian assistance and disaster-relief support.
While disaster relief has been a recent public focus for C-17 operations, they also continue to support Australian and International Security Assistance Forces in Afghanistan and the Middle East, meeting their primary purpose in providing military long-range heavy airlift.
Following receipt of cost and availability information from the United States, the Government will make a decision about the purchase based on capability, cost and schedule assessments of the sixth C‑17A.
Source : MoD Australia ASD news
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Age: 51
Posts: 931
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So now we are looking at a 6th?
i forget who the poster was (i did do a brief scan)...but they alluded to Boing having several parked out the front with no owners. Based on someone elses costings, wouldn't it be cheaper to just buy the lot and be done with it....it'd make boing happy to move em on.....
i forget who the poster was (i did do a brief scan)...but they alluded to Boing having several parked out the front with no owners. Based on someone elses costings, wouldn't it be cheaper to just buy the lot and be done with it....it'd make boing happy to move em on.....
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Out There
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CH-47 vs Caribou replacement
As much as we need extra helos, we also need a replacement for the Caribou.
CH-47 was about four times the running cost per hr than the 'bou, so that in it's self is reason enough.
Plus the range and mainenace areas are other reasons.
I just wouldn't hold my breath for these to eventuate.
Cut a few JSFs from the order, as we are far more likely to utilise the above mentioned aircraft in all of Defence's future Ops, and voila! extra money to buy what we really need.
S64
CH-47 was about four times the running cost per hr than the 'bou, so that in it's self is reason enough.
Plus the range and mainenace areas are other reasons.
I just wouldn't hold my breath for these to eventuate.
Cut a few JSFs from the order, as we are far more likely to utilise the above mentioned aircraft in all of Defence's future Ops, and voila! extra money to buy what we really need.
S64
A 'Bou replacement?
I know this has been debated previously (and I am aware of thread drift) but the crowd who purchased the DHC designs and IP are already churning out new Twotters.
I seem to recall that the feasibility to restart production of the Buffalo was being looked at, but had to jump through a new series of regulatory hoops.
The Buffalo is essentially a turbine powered Caribou. As mentioned above, if Australia were to reduce a commitment of 5 JSF, and instead throw that money at the Buffalo project by way of seed funding, we could have a very capable replacement in 3-4 years.
Plainmaker
I seem to recall that the feasibility to restart production of the Buffalo was being looked at, but had to jump through a new series of regulatory hoops.
The Buffalo is essentially a turbine powered Caribou. As mentioned above, if Australia were to reduce a commitment of 5 JSF, and instead throw that money at the Buffalo project by way of seed funding, we could have a very capable replacement in 3-4 years.
Plainmaker
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Sale, VIC, AUS
Age: 50
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cut a few JSFs from the order, as we are far more likely to utilise the above mentioned aircraft in all of Defence's future Ops, and voila! extra money to buy what we really need.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Oz
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TBM - correct.
Boeing recently cut back from two shifts to one and has scaled back to building 10 C-17s a year in order to extend the life of the line.
There is an Indian order of 10-16 jets to be filled, plus a similar number in the USAF backlog, plus hot prospects for further sales in the Middle East.
Boeing recently cut back from two shifts to one and has scaled back to building 10 C-17s a year in order to extend the life of the line.
There is an Indian order of 10-16 jets to be filled, plus a similar number in the USAF backlog, plus hot prospects for further sales in the Middle East.
7 when full servicing cycle established (i.e ~ 4 years from original deliveries) with current resources allocated (i.e same manpower and annual hours for 7 with a mature maintenance schedule as for 4 in the first few years).
This has always been a known target, b ut you cant necessarily order them all at once due funding being required to be allocated when the Project is established.
Hence the staged orders as original acquisitions start hitting depot servicings AND funding remains available in later years (never a guarantee of that)
This has always been a known target, b ut you cant necessarily order them all at once due funding being required to be allocated when the Project is established.
Hence the staged orders as original acquisitions start hitting depot servicings AND funding remains available in later years (never a guarantee of that)
