Aussie MRH-90
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Andu
Andu says: "There's a bright side to the current bad floods in southern Queensland - the AAVN chopper drivers are getting some much-needed flying".
The inference is presumably that the only flying done by AAAvn is in support of disaster relief? Or that Avn aircrew are lucky to get the opportunity to fly when they otherwise wouldn't? Or that they should be glad whenever there's a flood so they can finally get airborne?
Not your most intelligent post, Andu and the competition is fierce. If ignorance is bliss, you must on cloud nine.
The inference is presumably that the only flying done by AAAvn is in support of disaster relief? Or that Avn aircrew are lucky to get the opportunity to fly when they otherwise wouldn't? Or that they should be glad whenever there's a flood so they can finally get airborne?
Not your most intelligent post, Andu and the competition is fierce. If ignorance is bliss, you must on cloud nine.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jesu *** Christos, emergov, talk about going off half-cocked. As someone who has done exactly the type of flying the AAVN blokes (and, I'd assume, these days, bloke-ettes) are now doing, I know how (a) demanding, and (B) rewarding it can be. Far from inferring any of the criticisms you note, my inference was that I have heard from more than one source that, not just because of the recent swingeing defence cuts, the AAVN crews are averaging scandalously low monthly flying hours, and the flood work would be outside those restrictions.
Let's get back to the point of my post rather than my post script and Jim Molan's Canberra Times article.
Let's get back to the point of my post rather than my post script and Jim Molan's Canberra Times article.
It hasn't gone swimmingly for the AAvn crews in Bundaberg during the floods. It's not their fault, but the system and cost cutting is really starting to bite. They were short of fuel and unable to fly for much of the time they were there. Only one helicopter organisation was able to keep flying at night on NVG after bringing in their own fuel.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 926
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Andu
That's General's Molan and Cantwell now on the record with scathing opinions of the good Mr Smith, who appears to think the Defence Portfolio is beneath him (much prefers to schmoos on the international diplomatic circuit, where he is provided with comforts and accoutrements more in keeping with his perceived status).
He thinks ADF stands for the "Australian Distaster Relief/humanitarian Force".
Every statement at any equipment announcement has "Humanitarian" repeated ad nauseum.
It would be interesting to hear what the brass say about him in private, but they are too honourable and have an appropraite sense of duty, to ever say anything in public (nor should they ever say anything in public).
Smith hates the ADF, and is condescending about the members, whom he seems to regard as serfs and beneath him.
John Faulkner seems to me was and is a much more decent human being, and dedicated to doing his job properly.
John
That's General's Molan and Cantwell now on the record with scathing opinions of the good Mr Smith, who appears to think the Defence Portfolio is beneath him (much prefers to schmoos on the international diplomatic circuit, where he is provided with comforts and accoutrements more in keeping with his perceived status).
He thinks ADF stands for the "Australian Distaster Relief/humanitarian Force".
Every statement at any equipment announcement has "Humanitarian" repeated ad nauseum.
It would be interesting to hear what the brass say about him in private, but they are too honourable and have an appropraite sense of duty, to ever say anything in public (nor should they ever say anything in public).
Smith hates the ADF, and is condescending about the members, whom he seems to regard as serfs and beneath him.
John Faulkner seems to me was and is a much more decent human being, and dedicated to doing his job properly.
John
Last edited by rjtjrt; 1st Feb 2013 at 00:00. Reason: Punctuation and spelling
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"They were short of fuel and unable to fly for much of the time they were there."
Are you saying the Aust Gov't can't afford fuel for helos ?
Even in disaster relief.
Then again, with this Gov't, it doesn't surprise me.
Are you saying the Aust Gov't can't afford fuel for helos ?
Even in disaster relief.
Then again, with this Gov't, it doesn't surprise me.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: North Arm Cove, NSW, Australia
Age: 86
Posts: 229
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Huey II in Afghanistan
Post #339 by Felix re Italian NH90 deployment to Afghanistan is very interesting.
During RAAF UH-1H Iroquois operations in Vietnam with 4 crew, doorgun armaments and full fuel, 7 combat-equipped troops were routinely carried. The floor plans of Huey II (an enhanced UH-1H) and the UH-1Y Super Huey operated by the USMC (which has a 533mm fuselage stretch), do not have gunner stations and armaments encroaching on cabin volume capacity, as for some other helo types.
According to Bell performance information, the single-engined Huey II operated in forementioned configuration can hover IGE at about 12,000feet AMSL in ISA+20 conditions. Increased maximum internal operating AUW allows about 600Kg for niceties like lightweight armoured flooring, FLIR, defensive suites or whatever. The following image shows a Huey II being operated in Afghanistan on behalf of the US State Department and may have been chosen for its role due to better hot and high performance than the much heavier twin-engined Super Huey or Blackhawk. Note the device attached near the end of the tailboom:
The Italian deployment reveals that there was no justifiable operational reason for acquisition of the MRH90 for the ADF and especially shedding of the Iroquois that were very cheaply upgradeable (there are presently still some in storage in Brisbane awaiting disposal).
There is much hype generated among the defence commentariat, including some politicians and military leaders, regarding the usability of new platforms being acquired for humanitarian purposes (including sluggish aircraft carriers). During 26 years of Air Force Iroquois operations, and a shorter period of Chinook employment, national commitment tasking and aid to civil powers became very frequent, but was largely viewed by those involved as a routine tertiary role - we were then mainly very actively involved in Army support. The ability to swiftly deploy Iroquois by C-130 to scenes of action in the SW Pacific region was an important capability for both the RAAF and RNZAF. Apparently, it takes about 2 hours to prepare an NH90 (MRH90) for C-17 embarkation and reconfiguration and the big airlifter cannot access many rudimentary airfields accessible by C-130. Both Australian and New Zealand ability to react to regional contingencies has been/will be substantially impacted and the operating costs of doing so enormously increased.
"In addition to the five-member crew, the standard payload for RC West area operations in summer season is based on six fully equipped soldiers of 130kg each, or around 800kg," says Annigliato. "During winter season we can carry seven soldiers, while a maximum useful load of eight troops or 1,000kg of internal cargo is imposed by the cabin layout, operational conditions permitting," he adds. "The latter also required new operational procedures to rapidly exit and board using the helicopter rear ramp, as the forward cabin area is dominated by the two pintle-mounted gun systems."
According to Bell performance information, the single-engined Huey II operated in forementioned configuration can hover IGE at about 12,000feet AMSL in ISA+20 conditions. Increased maximum internal operating AUW allows about 600Kg for niceties like lightweight armoured flooring, FLIR, defensive suites or whatever. The following image shows a Huey II being operated in Afghanistan on behalf of the US State Department and may have been chosen for its role due to better hot and high performance than the much heavier twin-engined Super Huey or Blackhawk. Note the device attached near the end of the tailboom:
The Italian deployment reveals that there was no justifiable operational reason for acquisition of the MRH90 for the ADF and especially shedding of the Iroquois that were very cheaply upgradeable (there are presently still some in storage in Brisbane awaiting disposal).
There is much hype generated among the defence commentariat, including some politicians and military leaders, regarding the usability of new platforms being acquired for humanitarian purposes (including sluggish aircraft carriers). During 26 years of Air Force Iroquois operations, and a shorter period of Chinook employment, national commitment tasking and aid to civil powers became very frequent, but was largely viewed by those involved as a routine tertiary role - we were then mainly very actively involved in Army support. The ability to swiftly deploy Iroquois by C-130 to scenes of action in the SW Pacific region was an important capability for both the RAAF and RNZAF. Apparently, it takes about 2 hours to prepare an NH90 (MRH90) for C-17 embarkation and reconfiguration and the big airlifter cannot access many rudimentary airfields accessible by C-130. Both Australian and New Zealand ability to react to regional contingencies has been/will be substantially impacted and the operating costs of doing so enormously increased.
Last edited by Bushranger 71; 2nd Feb 2013 at 06:56. Reason: Addendum
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: North Arm Cove, NSW, Australia
Age: 86
Posts: 229
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuel for Blackhawk flood relief operations
Re post # 348 by Joker 89.
When the RAAF operated Chinook, Army Aviation decided they were not necessary considering Blackhawk adequate for medium lift operations. Air Force advised that Chinook MLH were necessary to support Blackhawks, armour, engineer equipment, etcetera, especially regarding fuelling in remoter areas. Ultimately, after Army decided it did not then want Chinooks, the RAAF No. 12 Squadron was disbanded. Army subsequently decided it did need an MLH capability and took 4 mothballed Chinooks with another 2 being added, all subsequently of Delta model standard.
The question arises why Chinook were not used to deploy aviation fuel in recent flood relief operations, as Caribou/C-130 were used for that purpose in supporting Iroquois flood relief operations in the past?
When the RAAF operated Chinook, Army Aviation decided they were not necessary considering Blackhawk adequate for medium lift operations. Air Force advised that Chinook MLH were necessary to support Blackhawks, armour, engineer equipment, etcetera, especially regarding fuelling in remoter areas. Ultimately, after Army decided it did not then want Chinooks, the RAAF No. 12 Squadron was disbanded. Army subsequently decided it did need an MLH capability and took 4 mothballed Chinooks with another 2 being added, all subsequently of Delta model standard.
The question arises why Chinook were not used to deploy aviation fuel in recent flood relief operations, as Caribou/C-130 were used for that purpose in supporting Iroquois flood relief operations in the past?
Last edited by Bushranger 71; 2nd Feb 2013 at 06:35. Reason: Grammar
Bushranger,
correct me if I'm wrong, but Italian NH90's in A'stan are powered by T700-T6E1, which are not the best performer in hot&high conditions.
Another question are windshield cracks and floor problems. Those problems were known for quite a long time (and solved?), so what's going on here?
IMHO, the ergonomics of the NH90 cabin is far from perfect with those doors in the middle. Would be better to have them just behind the cockpit. Was it a problem?
The entire article sounds a little bit like "we are are happy, but don't buy".
Anything to do with some tenders?
Arrakis
correct me if I'm wrong, but Italian NH90's in A'stan are powered by T700-T6E1, which are not the best performer in hot&high conditions.
Another question are windshield cracks and floor problems. Those problems were known for quite a long time (and solved?), so what's going on here?
IMHO, the ergonomics of the NH90 cabin is far from perfect with those doors in the middle. Would be better to have them just behind the cockpit. Was it a problem?
The entire article sounds a little bit like "we are are happy, but don't buy".
Anything to do with some tenders?
Arrakis
Last edited by ARRAKIS; 2nd Feb 2013 at 11:48.
UH-1 in Afghan
"may have been chosen for its role due to better hot and high performance than the much heavier twin-engined Super Huey or Blackhawk."
The US State department uses the Huey as part of its arsenal against the poppy trade which is mostly limited to the plains south west of Kandahar in Helmand provence (about 3000' AMSL). They also operate clean skin most of the time with less than eight troops on board (about four in summer).
The Super transporters were able to operate at 6000' AMSL with eight passengers (not combat troops) with no armaments or protection systems on board. Hence they only operate to secure bases with a low threat level. They did perform better than the Puma's in country in the hot and high environment (not Super Pumas, EC 725s or the NH-90 and definitely not the S-70).
You can also hear them at ten miles (20 if the wind is blowing from the right direction). Might not have been a problem in the jungles of Vietnam but is a major problem in the sparse terrain of Afghanistan.
As for the importance of humanitarian or DACC work by the ADF. It is only done because the assets are there and is not a selection criteria for the platform. There are plenty of civil companies who can fill that role if needed and who would be more than happy for the work. The ADF gets called in because the tax payer has already paid for most of it so it gets better value for money than getting civil companies to fly half way across the country.
The US State department uses the Huey as part of its arsenal against the poppy trade which is mostly limited to the plains south west of Kandahar in Helmand provence (about 3000' AMSL). They also operate clean skin most of the time with less than eight troops on board (about four in summer).
The Super transporters were able to operate at 6000' AMSL with eight passengers (not combat troops) with no armaments or protection systems on board. Hence they only operate to secure bases with a low threat level. They did perform better than the Puma's in country in the hot and high environment (not Super Pumas, EC 725s or the NH-90 and definitely not the S-70).
You can also hear them at ten miles (20 if the wind is blowing from the right direction). Might not have been a problem in the jungles of Vietnam but is a major problem in the sparse terrain of Afghanistan.
As for the importance of humanitarian or DACC work by the ADF. It is only done because the assets are there and is not a selection criteria for the platform. There are plenty of civil companies who can fill that role if needed and who would be more than happy for the work. The ADF gets called in because the tax payer has already paid for most of it so it gets better value for money than getting civil companies to fly half way across the country.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When I did flood relief many years ago, (and on more than one occasion), ground stocks of fuel were often contaminated by flood waters, so the very first thing Ronnie RAAF would do was to fly in a supply of AVTUR for the Hueys and Kiowas in their Caribous, (in 44 gal drums), quite frequently to quite small, outlying private fields as close as possible to the action.
I can recall finding a Caribou-capable field myself on one occasion on a farm property and having to fly a Caribou pilot out to it to have him confirm that it was, in fact, suitable.
The Hercs can bring in a lot more drums in one sortie, but they cannot operate into many of the flood-affected fields, particularly gravel or grass fields when those fields are wet.
If, as someone has stated above, the Blackhawks were (still are?) limited by lack of fuel, is this another "unforeseen circumstance" (unforeseen - only by some) of the ADF no longer having a Caribou type in its inventory? Even the C-27 would be far more limited in its capabilities than the Caribou in situations like this.
Let's not even go anywhere near asking why the MRH-90s were not considered suitable for use in these floods, where large numbers of people needed to me moved.
I can recall finding a Caribou-capable field myself on one occasion on a farm property and having to fly a Caribou pilot out to it to have him confirm that it was, in fact, suitable.
The Hercs can bring in a lot more drums in one sortie, but they cannot operate into many of the flood-affected fields, particularly gravel or grass fields when those fields are wet.
If, as someone has stated above, the Blackhawks were (still are?) limited by lack of fuel, is this another "unforeseen circumstance" (unforeseen - only by some) of the ADF no longer having a Caribou type in its inventory? Even the C-27 would be far more limited in its capabilities than the Caribou in situations like this.
Let's not even go anywhere near asking why the MRH-90s were not considered suitable for use in these floods, where large numbers of people needed to me moved.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: North Arm Cove, NSW, Australia
Age: 86
Posts: 229
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Helo hot and high performance
Hi White Rabbit.
If we are to get good gen on comparative helo capabilities, then manufacturer performance data needs scrutiny. A proper judgement cannot be made on what some operators are doing, but moreso on platform capability. As I recall, there has been low response to requests on threads in this and other forums for contributors to provide maker performance data for Tiger, MRH90 and Blackhawk UH-60M. I would wager a large quantity of beer that none of them have h&h performance comparable with the Huey II. Maybe you can provide us with some performance data for operations in ISA+20 conditions?
Respectfully; Vietnam is far from being wholly jungle clad. There are many areas of open or sparsely vegetated country, especially in Phuoc Tuy Province which was the 1ATF TAOR, and we operated lots in urban environments.
An Australian Army Captain operating with the US Army in 1965 correctly identified the problem with helicopter operations as 'Helos indicate your intentions to the enemy' , or like words. They just sat up on elevated features, observed helo movements and monitored radio traffic to get the big picture, which doubtless also happens in Afghanistan. There are records of us inserting our SAS to knock over such observation posts. The sound of air movements is really of little consequence, except if interfering with desired quietness for own troops if operating in vegetation for example.
If we are to get good gen on comparative helo capabilities, then manufacturer performance data needs scrutiny. A proper judgement cannot be made on what some operators are doing, but moreso on platform capability. As I recall, there has been low response to requests on threads in this and other forums for contributors to provide maker performance data for Tiger, MRH90 and Blackhawk UH-60M. I would wager a large quantity of beer that none of them have h&h performance comparable with the Huey II. Maybe you can provide us with some performance data for operations in ISA+20 conditions?
You can also hear them at ten miles (20 if the wind is blowing from the right direction). Might not have been a problem in the jungles of Vietnam but is a major problem in the sparse terrain of Afghanistan.
An Australian Army Captain operating with the US Army in 1965 correctly identified the problem with helicopter operations as 'Helos indicate your intentions to the enemy' , or like words. They just sat up on elevated features, observed helo movements and monitored radio traffic to get the big picture, which doubtless also happens in Afghanistan. There are records of us inserting our SAS to knock over such observation posts. The sound of air movements is really of little consequence, except if interfering with desired quietness for own troops if operating in vegetation for example.
Last edited by Bushranger 71; 2nd Feb 2013 at 21:55.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Andu
Instead of having to worry about getting fuel to the aircraft
and landing strips in the wet, why not get the fuel to the nearest
dry location and fly the choppers to that point for refueling ?
Don't they have Ordnance / Supply units doing refueling from
bladders anymore ?
Couldn't one of the supply units be called up to set up an operation
in some reasonably close location that would work for the Helo's ?
It used to be done on pet courses in the past - although a few years
ago now but surely we still have that capability.
Instead of having to worry about getting fuel to the aircraft
and landing strips in the wet, why not get the fuel to the nearest
dry location and fly the choppers to that point for refueling ?
Don't they have Ordnance / Supply units doing refueling from
bladders anymore ?
Couldn't one of the supply units be called up to set up an operation
in some reasonably close location that would work for the Helo's ?
It used to be done on pet courses in the past - although a few years
ago now but surely we still have that capability.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
500N, in a Huey at least, range and endurance were always critical, and I'd be guessing that that remains a problem with most of the more modern helicopters today.
Particularly if having to do a series of hovers/winches, fuel consumption can be high, so the closer you can have your fuel stocks to where you're working, and preferably in multiple locations, the better.
"The nearest dry location" to leave your fuel stocks can be a problem in flood relief. When we worked out of Wee Wah in the early 70s, the township and airport were considerably below flood level, but dry thanks to the levee bank, which the locals had to constantly patrol and shore up. (Or the pink-skinned locals at least - but let's not go there, for that would be wandering into politically incorrect territory.) However, every day, there was the real possibility of the levee bank breaching, which would have resulted in a situation as catastrophic for Wee Wah as we're currently seeing in Bundaberg.
The surrounding countryside was simply one huge inland sea. You had to see it to believe how big it was, (someone told me at the time that an area the size of Western Europe was under water, perhaps an exaggeration, but it will give you some idea of the scale of the floods), and in those days before GPS, navigation was a matter of heading and airspeed, for 90% of land features were under water. One of the few reliable pinpoints available was (were?) the very few wheat silos. If in doubt of our position, we'd go down to near water level and look to the horizon for the silo before pressing on.
Far from having Ordinance and Supply Units tasked with refuelling the Hueys, the system was very simple. A Caribou would drop off 'n' number of drums at locations 'x', 'y' and 'z', (which were sometimes a farmer's private airstrip), hopefully stand them on their ends (ideally, we weren't supposed to use a drum before it had stood undisturbed for I forget how many hours to allow the water and contaminants to settle), and we'd drop by to that and any other fuel site when and as required, keeping each other and the SES co-ordinators updated as to how many drums were left at each site.
No one stayed with the fuel. Sometimes we'd leave a hand pump or motorised rig at the site, but often as not, we'd carry a pump on the aircraft. Almost without exception, the chopper crews would do the refuelling themselves.
Rather than have supply units manning such sites, the poor bloody grunts, if they were involved, would be hard at work helping the locals with more pressing matters - and what thankless work that often was for the poor buggers.
By the comments made by some here, you'd be surprised to learn that the RAAF guys in their Caribous and Hueys got on very well with the AAVN blokes in their Kiowas. The smaller Kiowas had a slightly different job to do than the larger Hueys, but they complemented each others' operation when as as required. I saw very little rancour between the blokes of the two forces myself. There was always banter, but (as I saw it, at least), it was always in good spirit. The one incident where high emotions were involved and things almost came to blows that I do recall was in PNG, and I've since learned that one of the main players there was a bloke who had some serious issues and was just basically a pain in the arse - and that came from someone who was wearing the same uniform as he was - so I can't put that down totally to Army versus RAAF.
The C-27 should address some of the problems the Blackhawk crews are apparently encountering at the moment, but, as it's been said before here and elsewhere, as welcome as it will be, it won't provide anywhere near the operational flexibility of the Caribou, for it's just too big and too heavy to operate into many of the places a Caribou could go.
Particularly if having to do a series of hovers/winches, fuel consumption can be high, so the closer you can have your fuel stocks to where you're working, and preferably in multiple locations, the better.
"The nearest dry location" to leave your fuel stocks can be a problem in flood relief. When we worked out of Wee Wah in the early 70s, the township and airport were considerably below flood level, but dry thanks to the levee bank, which the locals had to constantly patrol and shore up. (Or the pink-skinned locals at least - but let's not go there, for that would be wandering into politically incorrect territory.) However, every day, there was the real possibility of the levee bank breaching, which would have resulted in a situation as catastrophic for Wee Wah as we're currently seeing in Bundaberg.
The surrounding countryside was simply one huge inland sea. You had to see it to believe how big it was, (someone told me at the time that an area the size of Western Europe was under water, perhaps an exaggeration, but it will give you some idea of the scale of the floods), and in those days before GPS, navigation was a matter of heading and airspeed, for 90% of land features were under water. One of the few reliable pinpoints available was (were?) the very few wheat silos. If in doubt of our position, we'd go down to near water level and look to the horizon for the silo before pressing on.
Far from having Ordinance and Supply Units tasked with refuelling the Hueys, the system was very simple. A Caribou would drop off 'n' number of drums at locations 'x', 'y' and 'z', (which were sometimes a farmer's private airstrip), hopefully stand them on their ends (ideally, we weren't supposed to use a drum before it had stood undisturbed for I forget how many hours to allow the water and contaminants to settle), and we'd drop by to that and any other fuel site when and as required, keeping each other and the SES co-ordinators updated as to how many drums were left at each site.
No one stayed with the fuel. Sometimes we'd leave a hand pump or motorised rig at the site, but often as not, we'd carry a pump on the aircraft. Almost without exception, the chopper crews would do the refuelling themselves.
Rather than have supply units manning such sites, the poor bloody grunts, if they were involved, would be hard at work helping the locals with more pressing matters - and what thankless work that often was for the poor buggers.
By the comments made by some here, you'd be surprised to learn that the RAAF guys in their Caribous and Hueys got on very well with the AAVN blokes in their Kiowas. The smaller Kiowas had a slightly different job to do than the larger Hueys, but they complemented each others' operation when as as required. I saw very little rancour between the blokes of the two forces myself. There was always banter, but (as I saw it, at least), it was always in good spirit. The one incident where high emotions were involved and things almost came to blows that I do recall was in PNG, and I've since learned that one of the main players there was a bloke who had some serious issues and was just basically a pain in the arse - and that came from someone who was wearing the same uniform as he was - so I can't put that down totally to Army versus RAAF.
The C-27 should address some of the problems the Blackhawk crews are apparently encountering at the moment, but, as it's been said before here and elsewhere, as welcome as it will be, it won't provide anywhere near the operational flexibility of the Caribou, for it's just too big and too heavy to operate into many of the places a Caribou could go.
Aussie MRH-90
My post regarding fuel issue was purely based on the rumor that the aavn ops were restricted. For all I know there is possibly no issue with fuel supply but it wouldn't surprise me if there was.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Great Southern Land
Age: 57
Posts: 434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
12-15 hours at a 20 deg from vertical, Andu, according to the pam.
A pic of an MRH90 carrying an underslung DFC (Drum Fuel Collapsible) during AMTDU's trials - looky here!
We should be flexible enough to set up FARPs - or at least the DACC equivalent to a FARP - with great ease. Should be. Plenty of ADF assets in Qld that can do that sort of thing.
A pic of an MRH90 carrying an underslung DFC (Drum Fuel Collapsible) during AMTDU's trials - looky here!
We should be flexible enough to set up FARPs - or at least the DACC equivalent to a FARP - with great ease. Should be. Plenty of ADF assets in Qld that can do that sort of thing.