5th C-17 for RAAF
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wingham NSW Australia
Age: 83
Posts: 1,343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Response to ftrplt
ftrplt When one retires there is no automatic dumping of knowledge or experience. I was always told that I could learn much by listening to what older and more experienced folk had to say. The tone of some of your rebuttals of the opinion of others indicates that those opinions should be dismissed.
The present day RAAF maintenance force is no less able than in previous eras, however the ratio of enlisted maintenance personnel to civil contracted maintenance personnel is much less than in past times. This of itself is not a problem, except that the civilian personnel are not subject to being deployed in the same way enlisted personnel are.
The Super Hornet, as worthy an aircraft as it may be, was from the outset perceived to be a "stop gap" acquisition to carry the RAAF through until the JSF arrive. Minister Nelson said as much when announcing the order.
As for the 18 month wait for newly graduated pilots to be trained to ALG aircraft, that is an indication, to me, of failed forward planning and a waste of manpower. I would have thought that in this day and age the bulk of training could be performed in the simulators available today.
You may not agree with much of what us grey headed old folk think, but there is no profit in the way in which you respond to those points of view. I don't know what you do for a living, but I do know what many others here have done and that they have probably benefited from that experience.
The present day RAAF maintenance force is no less able than in previous eras, however the ratio of enlisted maintenance personnel to civil contracted maintenance personnel is much less than in past times. This of itself is not a problem, except that the civilian personnel are not subject to being deployed in the same way enlisted personnel are.
The Super Hornet, as worthy an aircraft as it may be, was from the outset perceived to be a "stop gap" acquisition to carry the RAAF through until the JSF arrive. Minister Nelson said as much when announcing the order.
As for the 18 month wait for newly graduated pilots to be trained to ALG aircraft, that is an indication, to me, of failed forward planning and a waste of manpower. I would have thought that in this day and age the bulk of training could be performed in the simulators available today.
You may not agree with much of what us grey headed old folk think, but there is no profit in the way in which you respond to those points of view. I don't know what you do for a living, but I do know what many others here have done and that they have probably benefited from that experience.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: North Arm Cove, NSW, Australia
Age: 86
Posts: 229
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi ftrplt. Hoping not to trigger further debate off the air lift theme; but herewith informative links that I omitted to include in response to your post #150:
Analysing "The ADF Air Combat Capability- On the Record"
Revisiting history–Australia’s decision to field the Super Hornet #auspol #military | ELP DEFENS(C)E BLOG
Analysing "The ADF Air Combat Capability- On the Record"
Revisiting history–Australia’s decision to field the Super Hornet #auspol #military | ELP DEFENS(C)E BLOG
Last edited by Bushranger 71; 13th Apr 2011 at 22:14.
Thread Starter
B71: Much old stuff there. Carlo and his mob are extremists in the other direction. He'd have importing the entire Russian inventory ranging from fighters to tanks...
The Super Hornet with its AESA radar is a magic piece of kit. Superior to anything in our area. For the money we should follow the USN model with around a 50/50 mix of fighters. This also allows for a transition of half the combat fleet at a time to new equipment rather than the big block obsolescence plan which runs down a capability completely when we re-equip
The Super Hornet with its AESA radar is a magic piece of kit. Superior to anything in our area. For the money we should follow the USN model with around a 50/50 mix of fighters. This also allows for a transition of half the combat fleet at a time to new equipment rather than the big block obsolescence plan which runs down a capability completely when we re-equip
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: North Arm Cove, NSW, Australia
Age: 86
Posts: 229
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TBM-L; dated info sure, but nonetheless valid. I do not agree with all views expressed by APA, but parties involved in submissions to the NACC study were intimately involved in enhancement and sustainment issues at the higher levels while still serving. They were well abreast of matters involved including upgrade of radar, sensors, etcetera - AESA gear is now being adapted to multiple types so I would not get too carried away with the SH sales pitch.
Overlapping phasing of acquisitions would be wise provided in-service types are progressively optimised (where cost-effective) to maintain adequate and credible military preparedness and to maximise capitalisation on initial investment. Because this has not been happening, multiple capability gaps are emerging which is inexcusable; also the amount of taxpayer funds squandered on ill-conceived projects that have been well aired on this and other threads. As said earlier, the Defence Capability Plan is really shot to bits.
Overlapping phasing of acquisitions would be wise provided in-service types are progressively optimised (where cost-effective) to maintain adequate and credible military preparedness and to maximise capitalisation on initial investment. Because this has not been happening, multiple capability gaps are emerging which is inexcusable; also the amount of taxpayer funds squandered on ill-conceived projects that have been well aired on this and other threads. As said earlier, the Defence Capability Plan is really shot to bits.
Thread Starter
B71: I'm not carried away by any sales pitch but rather comments from a couple of friends who are involved with our Super Hornets. They, not me, say it is a game changer.
A critical issue on procurement of key strategic assets is the supportability of these items in time of heightened tensions and conflict.
You will recall the Swiss having an issue with the Porter in Vietnam and the Swedes with the Carl Gustaf weapon. These are minor compared with major assets if push comes to shove.
A critical issue on procurement of key strategic assets is the supportability of these items in time of heightened tensions and conflict.
You will recall the Swiss having an issue with the Porter in Vietnam and the Swedes with the Carl Gustaf weapon. These are minor compared with major assets if push comes to shove.
TBM "You will recall the Swiss having an issue with the Porter in Vietnam and the Swedes with the Carl Gustaf weapon"
...and I think the Mirage couldn't be considered for Vietnam either.
...and I think the Mirage couldn't be considered for Vietnam either.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: North Arm Cove, NSW, Australia
Age: 86
Posts: 229
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi again TBM-L. On reflection, I have to challenge your assertion in post #164 re Air Power Australia. They are not extremists and do not advocate acquisition of Russian origin hardware. Utilising his worldwide contacts, Carlo Kopp generally provides a very objective scientific analysis of military equipment capabilities and APA mainly strongly promotes acquisition of US origin gear.
The plethora of reference information and discussion material on the APA website is not easily found elsewhere in the public arena (although Janes is also a good source) and is doubtless used extensively around the world for reference purposes, as indicated by very high volume web statistics. I would wager there are many within the Australian DoD who frequently visit the APA website seeking technical information, despite their continual campaign to discredit APA who deign to challenge the 'group think' behind many flawed acquisition decisions.
Regarding supportability of strategic assets in your following post; enhancement of the F-111 would have made it fully supportable to beyond 2020 – see this link again: Analysing "The ADF Air Combat Capability- On the Record"
Bbadanov; re your post #168. Comprehensive USAF offensive air support was available to 1 Australian Task Force in Vietnam, mostly based at Saigon and Bien Hoa just 50 or so kilometres away, and was often on station within about 10 minutes of request. There was no need for deployment of RAAF close air support resources, although Canberras were sometimes used in that role; but many would agree that the Mirage was not a good choice for Australia.
Getting back toward the thread theme; this Air Power Australia segment offers pretty broad discussion on AAR and air lift: Aerial Refuelling and Air Lift Capabilities
The plethora of reference information and discussion material on the APA website is not easily found elsewhere in the public arena (although Janes is also a good source) and is doubtless used extensively around the world for reference purposes, as indicated by very high volume web statistics. I would wager there are many within the Australian DoD who frequently visit the APA website seeking technical information, despite their continual campaign to discredit APA who deign to challenge the 'group think' behind many flawed acquisition decisions.
Regarding supportability of strategic assets in your following post; enhancement of the F-111 would have made it fully supportable to beyond 2020 – see this link again: Analysing "The ADF Air Combat Capability- On the Record"
Bbadanov; re your post #168. Comprehensive USAF offensive air support was available to 1 Australian Task Force in Vietnam, mostly based at Saigon and Bien Hoa just 50 or so kilometres away, and was often on station within about 10 minutes of request. There was no need for deployment of RAAF close air support resources, although Canberras were sometimes used in that role; but many would agree that the Mirage was not a good choice for Australia.
Getting back toward the thread theme; this Air Power Australia segment offers pretty broad discussion on AAR and air lift: Aerial Refuelling and Air Lift Capabilities
Thread Starter
B71: Carlo, of course makes some sense. He does, however, look at very theoretical models which in the main ignore either the fiscal or physical realities. The F-22 for example is not available for export. It has many problems in keeping them on-line and is very very costly to fly. The USAF are moving T-38's in as adversary aircraft to support them to save money on flying hours in ACM etc.
The F-111 debate is long lost - let's move on.
The real issue for defence right now is getting the funding to buy "shoes and socks" for them. ie. operating budgets are being cut in all services leaving us exposed in training etc etc
The F-111 debate is long lost - let's move on.
The real issue for defence right now is getting the funding to buy "shoes and socks" for them. ie. operating budgets are being cut in all services leaving us exposed in training etc etc
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Long delays in the training pipeline are nothing new. I think it took me 7 months to complete my Herc conversion, the main problem being that whenever an aircraft tasked for an operational trip went u/s, the squadron simply grabbed the trainer aircraft and the QFI and his studs were left standing on the empty Richmond apron.
This became such a point of contention that (I think it was) the very next course after mine was treated as an 'away trip', i.e., the aircraft was tasked for the conversion course in the same way any aircraft was tasked for any other operational task and the QFIs and the conversion course all went up to Darwin (much to the relief of the long-suffering residents of Windsor and Richmond) and did the whole conversion course up there in a matter of weeks. (I don't recall that anyone ever tried to snaffle their aircraft if a transitting aircraft went u/s in Darwin. I think it was written into the op. order that that was not going to happen.)
If the shortage is QFIs rather than airframes, (although I'd be willing to bet that finding a spare airframe for training is as much a problem today as it was in my day), surely Ronnie could take a leaf out of the airline book and do 99% - if not 100% - of the course in the simulator with the majority of the training, bar the final checks, done by simulator instructors rather than QFIs?
Finding sim. instructors from among the reservist ranks (ex-captains with oodles of time on type) should not be a problem on the C130, although I accept there wouldn't be too large a pool of ex-C17 drivers to drawn on yet.
I know this would involve thinking outside the box, (sorry for the grossly overused cliche, but in this case, it fits), but with the sims. available today, there's no reason a student needs to go anywhere near the aeroplane until he does his first operational flight. (The first time I set foot in a B777 as a crewmember, I had 300 paying passengers down the back.) I know the QFI fraternity might resist what some would see as an infringement into an area that traditionally has required the magic qualification, but I can assure all that for a sim.-based conversion course, a QFI is not required.
Standing by to be shot down in flames, for, as has been pointed out to others (and me) already, I'm just a silly ond fart, and what would I know?
This became such a point of contention that (I think it was) the very next course after mine was treated as an 'away trip', i.e., the aircraft was tasked for the conversion course in the same way any aircraft was tasked for any other operational task and the QFIs and the conversion course all went up to Darwin (much to the relief of the long-suffering residents of Windsor and Richmond) and did the whole conversion course up there in a matter of weeks. (I don't recall that anyone ever tried to snaffle their aircraft if a transitting aircraft went u/s in Darwin. I think it was written into the op. order that that was not going to happen.)
If the shortage is QFIs rather than airframes, (although I'd be willing to bet that finding a spare airframe for training is as much a problem today as it was in my day), surely Ronnie could take a leaf out of the airline book and do 99% - if not 100% - of the course in the simulator with the majority of the training, bar the final checks, done by simulator instructors rather than QFIs?
Finding sim. instructors from among the reservist ranks (ex-captains with oodles of time on type) should not be a problem on the C130, although I accept there wouldn't be too large a pool of ex-C17 drivers to drawn on yet.
I know this would involve thinking outside the box, (sorry for the grossly overused cliche, but in this case, it fits), but with the sims. available today, there's no reason a student needs to go anywhere near the aeroplane until he does his first operational flight. (The first time I set foot in a B777 as a crewmember, I had 300 paying passengers down the back.) I know the QFI fraternity might resist what some would see as an infringement into an area that traditionally has required the magic qualification, but I can assure all that for a sim.-based conversion course, a QFI is not required.
Standing by to be shot down in flames, for, as has been pointed out to others (and me) already, I'm just a silly ond fart, and what would I know?
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Great Southern Land
Age: 57
Posts: 434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wiley, CSD, my first CO had us brand new subbies in to his office on march in for a 'get to know you' kind of deal, as many (all ?) of us have done. It didn't really go how I'd anticipated it. This chap was (is) a genuine thinker, not at all bound by convention.
Throughout training at RMC we were constantly told to "think outside the box" but of course as soon as one did so, the DS went berko because we'd deviated from doctrine
So my CO says to us jube LTs: "Think INSIDE the box - it's a good box!"
He went on to tell us that the IMAP was rubbish and that 'mission command' didn't apply below DIV level. We weren't all that sure how to react - was this some kind of test?
So there are plenty of folks in Russell / JOC / AHQ / etc who will say "think outside the box" but very few who either can, or who are allowed, or who have even identified the box in the first place.
Throughout training at RMC we were constantly told to "think outside the box" but of course as soon as one did so, the DS went berko because we'd deviated from doctrine
So my CO says to us jube LTs: "Think INSIDE the box - it's a good box!"
He went on to tell us that the IMAP was rubbish and that 'mission command' didn't apply below DIV level. We weren't all that sure how to react - was this some kind of test?
So there are plenty of folks in Russell / JOC / AHQ / etc who will say "think outside the box" but very few who either can, or who are allowed, or who have even identified the box in the first place.
Thread Starter
Not the RAAF but the same...
RAF Top Guns grounded by lack of spare parts for new jets
by Tom McTague, Daily Mirror 15/04/2011
SCORES of RAF fighter jets have been grounded – because bungling MoD pen-pushers did not order enough spare parts.
Top Gun pilots are unable to train in the state-of-the-art £126million Typhoons, leaving our air defences and attack *capability drastically weakened.
Just eight of the UK’s 48 Typhoon fighter pilots have enough training to take part in attacks on Colonel Gaddafi’s troops, the influential Commons Public Accounts Committee reveals in a damning report out today.
It comes just two days after Typhoons over Libya carried out their first attack. Defence sources said it was “no coincidence” they dropped the two Paveway II bombs on tanks just 48 hours before the MPs’ highly-critical report was released.
The report found that the RAF is having to take spares from other aircraft just to keep the required number of Typhoons in the air. The committee said the MoD had warned the problems were likely to continue until 2015 until supplies reach a “steady state”. The scathing report found: “The department relies on a small group of key suppliers who have the technical and design capability to build, upgrade and support the Typhoon.
“Problems with the availability of spare parts have meant they’re not flying as many hours as the department requires. The department admitted it had not been managed well enough.”
The problem is the latest in a long line of bungles over the £20.2billion fleet of Typhoons, which will cost £3.5billion more than originally planned.
Britain has also cut its order to 160 of the planes rather than the initial 232.
Committee chairman Margaret Hodge said: “This pattern of decision-making is more about balancing the books in the short-term rather than ensuring value for money over time.”
***ADF facing similar problems...
by Tom McTague, Daily Mirror 15/04/2011
SCORES of RAF fighter jets have been grounded – because bungling MoD pen-pushers did not order enough spare parts.
Top Gun pilots are unable to train in the state-of-the-art £126million Typhoons, leaving our air defences and attack *capability drastically weakened.
Just eight of the UK’s 48 Typhoon fighter pilots have enough training to take part in attacks on Colonel Gaddafi’s troops, the influential Commons Public Accounts Committee reveals in a damning report out today.
It comes just two days after Typhoons over Libya carried out their first attack. Defence sources said it was “no coincidence” they dropped the two Paveway II bombs on tanks just 48 hours before the MPs’ highly-critical report was released.
The report found that the RAF is having to take spares from other aircraft just to keep the required number of Typhoons in the air. The committee said the MoD had warned the problems were likely to continue until 2015 until supplies reach a “steady state”. The scathing report found: “The department relies on a small group of key suppliers who have the technical and design capability to build, upgrade and support the Typhoon.
“Problems with the availability of spare parts have meant they’re not flying as many hours as the department requires. The department admitted it had not been managed well enough.”
The problem is the latest in a long line of bungles over the £20.2billion fleet of Typhoons, which will cost £3.5billion more than originally planned.
Britain has also cut its order to 160 of the planes rather than the initial 232.
Committee chairman Margaret Hodge said: “This pattern of decision-making is more about balancing the books in the short-term rather than ensuring value for money over time.”
***ADF facing similar problems...
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Antipodea
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
285Sqn has both a level 5 C130H and C130J simulator. These are fully booked and pretty hard to squeeze more copilot / captain conversions through. The days of circuit bashing as a B Cat Copilot are long gone.
The sim and QFI availability is the constraint. 285 / 37 already has plenty of Qantas reservists that they call upon. Again it's an issue of "xxxx course is running yyyy to zzzz" but unfortunately reserve QFI's have their primary job to do first and are not always available. On top of that it's pretty hard for a reservist to maintain all mission qualifications with only ~30 odd reserve days a year.
QFI's are used mainly for the hands and feet instructing. Otherwise an IQ or CQ (new 2FTS term = CQ(T) and CQ(CC) respectively) can be used for the mission related skills like airdrop, form, nvg etc.
The sim and QFI availability is the constraint. 285 / 37 already has plenty of Qantas reservists that they call upon. Again it's an issue of "xxxx course is running yyyy to zzzz" but unfortunately reserve QFI's have their primary job to do first and are not always available. On top of that it's pretty hard for a reservist to maintain all mission qualifications with only ~30 odd reserve days a year.
QFI's are used mainly for the hands and feet instructing. Otherwise an IQ or CQ (new 2FTS term = CQ(T) and CQ(CC) respectively) can be used for the mission related skills like airdrop, form, nvg etc.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: North Arm Cove, NSW, Australia
Age: 86
Posts: 229
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Retired military resources
The basic problem with armed forces sim instructor resources in Australia may be the inflexibility of the present military reserves system. There is an enormous reservoir of very experienced retired service (and airline) aviators who are just hanging around annoying their wives, playing golf or going to a 'men's shed' to keep themselves amused. It should not really matter if they might be in their 70s or even 80s, so long as they still have the mental ability to effectively perform the conversion training functions (on the ground). There are many fossils doing so around the world in the airline game and I did it myself for a decade.
Australia is not adequately capitalising on its huge retired military resources, but could do so with more flexible thinking. Retiring ages are silly for reserve forces and the main criteria should be medical condition appropriate for roles. Call it a 'Dad's Army' concept if you wish. Put another way, why would simulator/ground trainers even need to be military reservists when they could just be directly employed on flexible contracts?
Australia is not adequately capitalising on its huge retired military resources, but could do so with more flexible thinking. Retiring ages are silly for reserve forces and the main criteria should be medical condition appropriate for roles. Call it a 'Dad's Army' concept if you wish. Put another way, why would simulator/ground trainers even need to be military reservists when they could just be directly employed on flexible contracts?
I think you will find the military does 'believe' in using reservists for these and other roles.
The issue is under current management, there is no money for this and many other things.
Which is why I don't think you will see a Tactical Airlift capability restored until about 2 years after we discover again why we needed one in the first place!
The issue is under current management, there is no money for this and many other things.
Which is why I don't think you will see a Tactical Airlift capability restored until about 2 years after we discover again why we needed one in the first place!
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 543
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
285Sqn has both a level 5 C130H and C130J simulator. These are fully booked
Re the use of reservists: ozbiggles is right. If what I've been told is to be believed, Russell Hill would come to a grinding halt without the large number of reservists they currently employ. (I was told that someone asked the current CAF what would be a good collective noun for a group of reservists and he replied "a vital" or some such word.)
However, this widespread use has led to a huge cost blowout, and the military have told by the bean counters to lay off or drastically reduce the hours of many reservists, some of whom who were employed on quite important projects. (Wayne getting us back into surplus by 2013 overrides all else.)
Bushranger 71 has a point. Rather than use active reservists, most of whom are holding down an airline job, ex-service people could be employed for the job as contract civilians (as Boeing does in their worldwide simulator training programme). I think you'd find there'd be quite a few ex-Herc driver retirees out there who could be tempted back to the bat cave if the package was flexible enough.
But it would involve a bit of an attitude change by the uniformed men at the top - and they haven't been renowned for that to date.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lost again, you haven't answered MTOW's question: ("Can you define 'fully booked'?") to you comment that "285Sqn has both a level 5 C130H and C130J simulator. These are fully booked."
Do you mean "fully booked" as in
(a) a 24 hour a day cycle, 7 days a week - (as most civilian simulators are used) - or
(b) 'fully booked' as in 0800 to 1700 Monday to Friday?
If the answer isn't (a), an outsider would be tempted to ask, if the RAAF does indeed have a large number of trainees who, for years now, have waited inordinately long times to complete their training, WTF not?
Do you mean "fully booked" as in
(a) a 24 hour a day cycle, 7 days a week - (as most civilian simulators are used) - or
(b) 'fully booked' as in 0800 to 1700 Monday to Friday?
If the answer isn't (a), an outsider would be tempted to ask, if the RAAF does indeed have a large number of trainees who, for years now, have waited inordinately long times to complete their training, WTF not?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Oz
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Bushranger 71
I would wager there are many within the Australian DoD who frequently visit the APA website seeking technical information, despite their continual campaign to discredit APA who deign to challenge the 'group think' behind many flawed acquisition decisions.
I would suggest than rather than visiting APA to seek technical information, Australian DoD people visit it to see what they're up to now, or for a good laugh!
