5th C-17 for RAAF
Thread Starter
BR71, in a way you're correct. The brass massage the situation to achieve their desired outcome. I was talking to folks about the Sea Kings the other day. With an avionics upgrade they could continue to operate for at least another ten years. The airframe hours are quite low at an average of 8000. [there is a an H-3 water bomber in WA right now on contract that has 49000 hrs on the airframe they said!]. Keeping a dozen or so upgraded Hueys [when we own them] as utility ships would be smart.
Bit like the old days when the RAAF did not operate any small comms aircraft and we'd send a Herc or P-3 to pick up the CAS or whomever for a trip from Richmond to Williamtown etc. How good was that for the use of valuable equipment?
Brig Fraser was hell bent on four types only in the ADF.
Bit like the old days when the RAAF did not operate any small comms aircraft and we'd send a Herc or P-3 to pick up the CAS or whomever for a trip from Richmond to Williamtown etc. How good was that for the use of valuable equipment?
Brig Fraser was hell bent on four types only in the ADF.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some answers...
Black Hawks generally self deploy to East Timor when they change out for major servicings, but they are transportable by C-130 with a similar amount of disassembly to Huey. Mrh90 is also transportable in C-130 with some disassemble, but they haven't done it yet because the C-17 is far easier and quicker.
AIR 9000Phase 5 (CH-47 upgrade) is not looking at MH-47 anything, nor is it going to modify the aircraft to any great degree. The project will by vanilla CH-47F and fit a hoist and crashworthy seats.
There is no LUH project. Many are hoping there may be some future link to the Helicopter Aircrew Training System (HATS) where we might in future procure more of the same type to easily gain a fleet of LUH, but there is no formal project or even approval to do the analysis.
TBM, your navy contact has a point, but the proposal to fix that problem by retrofitting auto blade fold would have added about 25% cost to each airframe, and huge program risk. Composite repair is a problem that will be solved by training and specialist equipment.
As for performance, I don't understand why we should take NHI's figures with a grain of salt - in fact they have been quite conservative compared to the actual aircraft - and then accept a Huey II / Ultra Huey brochure as fact. MRH90 will lift, at 35deg c, OGE at 1500ft, nine 300(+) lb soldiers in crashworthy seats off an amphib ship, with ballistic protection, door guns and ammo, loaded EWSP, Floats, FLIR, weather radar and four crew to fly a 90nm radius mission and hold for 30 minutes before getting back on the ship. Huey II won't, and unfortunately for upgraded Huey, that is the Capability requirement.
More C-17 is a tops idea though. Let's drop 10 JSF and a submarine and get two more.
AIR 9000Phase 5 (CH-47 upgrade) is not looking at MH-47 anything, nor is it going to modify the aircraft to any great degree. The project will by vanilla CH-47F and fit a hoist and crashworthy seats.
There is no LUH project. Many are hoping there may be some future link to the Helicopter Aircrew Training System (HATS) where we might in future procure more of the same type to easily gain a fleet of LUH, but there is no formal project or even approval to do the analysis.
TBM, your navy contact has a point, but the proposal to fix that problem by retrofitting auto blade fold would have added about 25% cost to each airframe, and huge program risk. Composite repair is a problem that will be solved by training and specialist equipment.
As for performance, I don't understand why we should take NHI's figures with a grain of salt - in fact they have been quite conservative compared to the actual aircraft - and then accept a Huey II / Ultra Huey brochure as fact. MRH90 will lift, at 35deg c, OGE at 1500ft, nine 300(+) lb soldiers in crashworthy seats off an amphib ship, with ballistic protection, door guns and ammo, loaded EWSP, Floats, FLIR, weather radar and four crew to fly a 90nm radius mission and hold for 30 minutes before getting back on the ship. Huey II won't, and unfortunately for upgraded Huey, that is the Capability requirement.
More C-17 is a tops idea though. Let's drop 10 JSF and a submarine and get two more.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: North Arm Cove, NSW, Australia
Age: 86
Posts: 229
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Am baling out of this thread now, probably much to the relief of some. Sadly, I foresee the ADF becoming more or less operationally neutered through multiple ill-conceived hardware decisions and this will become progressively more obvious in the helo sphere.
But post #36 warrants some final response as you are way off track again Emergov.
I have nil involvement with the aircraft industry and any information I have offered regarding the Huey II was conveyed to me at my request by a former AAAvn airframe driver who is a Bell Helicopter representative.
You seem brainwashed or are very susceptible to manufacturer propaganda re the Blackhawk and MRH90 so consider this wisdom from a comprehensive US Army analysis of Vietnam War operations:
‘The (US) Army's decision to standardize on a utility tactical transport helicopter has far-reaching implications on every operation from its planning to its execution. Literally hundreds of our key battles could not have been fought without a light, agile machine that could go into improbable landing zones at a critical time. Had the Army chosen to build its airmobile tactics around a ‘platoon carrier’, different and less flexible tactics would have been forced on our commanders. As we move to replace the Huey fleet, we must never lose sight of the essential characteristics that made the Huey invaluable to the Infantry commander. Technology offers so many tempting alternatives that one can easily forget the basic problems of squad tactics. The vital lessons whichwe learned in the ‘sizing’ of our helicopter fleet dare not be forgotten.’ – Lieutenant General John J. Tolson
Blackhawk and MRH90 are not light and agile being roughly twice as heavy as the Huey II, between 10 and 20 times more expensive to purchase (depending on cost sources referenced) and at least 4 times more costly to operate. And, the Huey II is superior in hot and high performance.
See also my post #164 on the 'Why no helo transport thread?...' thread regarding Iroquois battlefield survivability and crashworthiness.
I am sure the RAAF would he willing to take the Huey II to war, if they still had a couple of squadrons.
At Year 2007, there were still around 5,000 Iroquois versions in service around the world with UH-1Y now in production and Huey II upgrades nearing 200. Long supportability is envisaged due to commonality of components with commercial versions. The USAF ordered 24 Huey II in 2005 with a glass cockpit option and also recently snapped up the last 6 Hotel model Hueys discarded by the US Army, presumably for upgrading to Huey II.
Better to stick to facts in forums.
Au revoir.
But post #36 warrants some final response as you are way off track again Emergov.
If doors off and reacher are snivelling lackeys and probably in bed with Eurocopter, then why isn't anyone accusing BR71 of being a Bell / Textron plant, trolling for business for his re-engineered Hueys?
The reason the Black Hawk exists is because of the lessons learnt and the vulnerabilities discovered in the Huey, arising from Vietnam. MRH90 / NH90 is a newer take on this twin turbine, AFCS, crashworthy, very powerful style of aircraft.
‘The (US) Army's decision to standardize on a utility tactical transport helicopter has far-reaching implications on every operation from its planning to its execution. Literally hundreds of our key battles could not have been fought without a light, agile machine that could go into improbable landing zones at a critical time. Had the Army chosen to build its airmobile tactics around a ‘platoon carrier’, different and less flexible tactics would have been forced on our commanders. As we move to replace the Huey fleet, we must never lose sight of the essential characteristics that made the Huey invaluable to the Infantry commander. Technology offers so many tempting alternatives that one can easily forget the basic problems of squad tactics. The vital lessons whichwe learned in the ‘sizing’ of our helicopter fleet dare not be forgotten.’ – Lieutenant General John J. Tolson
Blackhawk and MRH90 are not light and agile being roughly twice as heavy as the Huey II, between 10 and 20 times more expensive to purchase (depending on cost sources referenced) and at least 4 times more costly to operate. And, the Huey II is superior in hot and high performance.
See also my post #164 on the 'Why no helo transport thread?...' thread regarding Iroquois battlefield survivability and crashworthiness.
Everybody loves the Huey, but no-one really wants to take it to war. They built over 10,000 of them, and there are not many left around.
At Year 2007, there were still around 5,000 Iroquois versions in service around the world with UH-1Y now in production and Huey II upgrades nearing 200. Long supportability is envisaged due to commonality of components with commercial versions. The USAF ordered 24 Huey II in 2005 with a glass cockpit option and also recently snapped up the last 6 Hotel model Hueys discarded by the US Army, presumably for upgrading to Huey II.
Better to stick to facts in forums.
Au revoir.
Thread Starter
The USAF has recently selected the Blackhawk as its Huey replacement for missile site support. AW139M offered but AF chief wants to standardise as the USAF already operated H-60's.
Some great arguments here but we will never be able to wind back the clock even if it was 'right' then and now. Decisions are taken and that's it.
Another funny from the Navy on the MRH90 cabs they have is that they are being asked to remove the word NAVY from them.....mmmm
The reason given was that it costs thousands of dollars to change the nameplate if aircraft are swapped with Army. The Navy has a requirement to carry sonobuoys in their machines for at sea SAR purposes alas the MRH90 has no provision....
* USAF Huey 11's are for Iraq AF and other foreign users who buy or are given US equipment.
Some great arguments here but we will never be able to wind back the clock even if it was 'right' then and now. Decisions are taken and that's it.
Another funny from the Navy on the MRH90 cabs they have is that they are being asked to remove the word NAVY from them.....mmmm
The reason given was that it costs thousands of dollars to change the nameplate if aircraft are swapped with Army. The Navy has a requirement to carry sonobuoys in their machines for at sea SAR purposes alas the MRH90 has no provision....
* USAF Huey 11's are for Iraq AF and other foreign users who buy or are given US equipment.
Music Quizmeister
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Can'tberra, ACT Australia
Age: 67
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With respect BR71 - re your comment about UH1Y being in "production" - when briefed by Bell in 2001 they went to great pains to explain that the Y was not a "new" aircraft/airframe, but rather a Mod to an existing one. They needed to do this to be a Government "embargo" on new types.
So from memory - you had to supply about 3 panels from an older Huey to get a UH1Y................
Is this still the case or have they beat the Government "ban"?
TBM - what are/were the 4 types BRIG Fraser wanted?
I know for Army it was Tiger, NH90 (or Blackhawk) and CH47 - ie: Recce/Gunship, Medium/battlefield lift and heavy lift. The obvious loss back in 2002 or so during Air 9000 discussions was Kiowa as the "General's Taxi" -
So from memory - you had to supply about 3 panels from an older Huey to get a UH1Y................
Is this still the case or have they beat the Government "ban"?
TBM - what are/were the 4 types BRIG Fraser wanted?
I know for Army it was Tiger, NH90 (or Blackhawk) and CH47 - ie: Recce/Gunship, Medium/battlefield lift and heavy lift. The obvious loss back in 2002 or so during Air 9000 discussions was Kiowa as the "General's Taxi" -
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: OZ
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello again,
Sorry for the late addition - don't always spend time on teh computer.
Blackhawks can fit into a Herc as someone else said but as well as taking off the blades you have to take off some fairings, let down the struts to the main landing gear to get it over the ramp hinge. Also, the herc can carry one - the c-17 can carry three with crews!
Seen a C-17 get into Dilli in '07/08 so no dramas there but nothing around (unless you're talking VTOL) will land as short as a Bou, in strips as rugged as a bou will operate in so forget the fixed wing option - go more chinooks perhaps. I don't remember sweating on a landing in the 'bou until the field was less than 2000ft.
Haven't flown huey but flown C model chinooks and Blackhawks and love the blackhawk - bet the guys are wishing they got Mike models but at the end of the day the line swine don't hand over the cash for what they want - someone else holds the purse strings and the line drivers make do with what they got - kinda like being married.
Forget about the H's they are knackered - the only ones wanting to keep them are the nav's as they effectively out of a job in ALG when the H retires.
Happy to have and extra C-17. As for the Herc - I worry that with what the army is buying will make the herc into a caribou. Let me explain:
When the army changed over from the series III landrover to the 110 the caribou lost any ability to transport a 4x4. The 110 had flared wheel arches and would not physically fit into the back of a caribou so effectivley cutting out of one of its roles. With the 110 about to be replaced by something bigger/heavier the herc may find it in the same boat. And no it probably won't be one of their requirements to fit in the back of a C130 when they have a shiny C-17. So the herc becoomes the new caribou. Also, the floor loading on a J is no different to a E or H so if something has a heavy foot print then it may not be able to carry it. That's why the A400 might be better long term but only after another 5-10 years of OPERATIONAL service. Tired of ironing out the bugs for everybody else!!
But if you want to buy some J gunships then I'd be there in an instant
Frazzled
Sorry for the late addition - don't always spend time on teh computer.
Blackhawks can fit into a Herc as someone else said but as well as taking off the blades you have to take off some fairings, let down the struts to the main landing gear to get it over the ramp hinge. Also, the herc can carry one - the c-17 can carry three with crews!
Seen a C-17 get into Dilli in '07/08 so no dramas there but nothing around (unless you're talking VTOL) will land as short as a Bou, in strips as rugged as a bou will operate in so forget the fixed wing option - go more chinooks perhaps. I don't remember sweating on a landing in the 'bou until the field was less than 2000ft.
Haven't flown huey but flown C model chinooks and Blackhawks and love the blackhawk - bet the guys are wishing they got Mike models but at the end of the day the line swine don't hand over the cash for what they want - someone else holds the purse strings and the line drivers make do with what they got - kinda like being married.
Forget about the H's they are knackered - the only ones wanting to keep them are the nav's as they effectively out of a job in ALG when the H retires.
Happy to have and extra C-17. As for the Herc - I worry that with what the army is buying will make the herc into a caribou. Let me explain:
When the army changed over from the series III landrover to the 110 the caribou lost any ability to transport a 4x4. The 110 had flared wheel arches and would not physically fit into the back of a caribou so effectivley cutting out of one of its roles. With the 110 about to be replaced by something bigger/heavier the herc may find it in the same boat. And no it probably won't be one of their requirements to fit in the back of a C130 when they have a shiny C-17. So the herc becoomes the new caribou. Also, the floor loading on a J is no different to a E or H so if something has a heavy foot print then it may not be able to carry it. That's why the A400 might be better long term but only after another 5-10 years of OPERATIONAL service. Tired of ironing out the bugs for everybody else!!
But if you want to buy some J gunships then I'd be there in an instant
Frazzled
stand corrected.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sydney, AU
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When the army changed over from the series III landrover to the 110 the caribou lost any ability to transport a 4x4. The 110 had flared wheel arches and would not physically fit into the back of a caribou so effectivley cutting out of one of its roles. With the 110 about to be replaced by something bigger/heavier the herc may find it in the same boat. And no it probably won't be one of their requirements to fit in the back of a C130 when they have a shiny C-17.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by scran
when briefed by Bell in 2001 they went to great pains to explain that the Y was not a "new" aircraft/airframe, but rather a Mod to an existing one. They needed to do this to be a Government "embargo" on new types.
So from memory - you had to supply about 3 panels from an older Huey to get a UH1Y................
Is this still the case or have they beat the Government "ban"?
So from memory - you had to supply about 3 panels from an older Huey to get a UH1Y................
Is this still the case or have they beat the Government "ban"?
In April 2005, the USMC decided that the helicopters will be built as new rather than remanufactured, starting from the third low-rate initial production (LRIP) batch in 2008.
Bell UH-1Y Joins the USMC
The UH-1Y modernization is part of a comprehensive 'H-1 Upgrades Program' launched by the Marine Corps, replacing the current H-1 fleet with 90 newly built UH-1Ys, 10 remanufactured UH-1Ys and 180 remanufactured AH-1Zs.
Music Quizmeister
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Can'tberra, ACT Australia
Age: 67
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Knight 121 - thanks for the clarification. 
Barry - OK - now name an aircraft that will take the same payload as a Bou into the same strip as a Bou.......
FA18 - ADF fell out of love with the A400 when we decided on the C17 (in my opinion - why consider a paper aircraft when you can have a real aircraft parked on the tarmac within 6 months).
The airlift study did look at the entire continum (did I spell that right? - don't think so). I doubt you will see the A400 as suggested.
In 2028 it could be:
5 x C17 (the line must be getting close to closing, so unless they get a LOT of new orders...) Strat air
5 x KC30 (part time strat air)
12 - 14 C130J (strat/tact lift)
10 or so C27
(but I'm out now - so don't have any close knowledge......
Barry - OK - now name an aircraft that will take the same payload as a Bou into the same strip as a Bou.......
FA18 - ADF fell out of love with the A400 when we decided on the C17 (in my opinion - why consider a paper aircraft when you can have a real aircraft parked on the tarmac within 6 months).
The airlift study did look at the entire continum (did I spell that right? - don't think so). I doubt you will see the A400 as suggested.
In 2028 it could be:
5 x C17 (the line must be getting close to closing, so unless they get a LOT of new orders...) Strat air
5 x KC30 (part time strat air)
12 - 14 C130J (strat/tact lift)
10 or so C27
(but I'm out now - so don't have any close knowledge......
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Oz
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
scran,
Over what distance?
Any of the above, in multiple taps or with multiple aircraft. Why would you have to do it in a single tap?
At the end of the day, exactly what are you trying to achieve?
Over what distance?
Any of the above, in multiple taps or with multiple aircraft. Why would you have to do it in a single tap?
At the end of the day, exactly what are you trying to achieve?
because the more taps the more risks, the more time, the more crews, more damage to the strips, more maintenance, more costs and therefore the less time for more tasks, more rest......
Like the reason we got C17 instead of more Hercs....
Like the reason we got C17 instead of more Hercs....
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Oz
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The airlift study did look at the entire continum (did I spell that right? - don't think so). I doubt you will see the A400 as suggested.
AFHQ is keeping a very close eye on A400M, especially as Army is going up in scale and weight on all of its vehicle projects. There is thought that it would make an ideal C-130J replacement in the mid 2020s, unless Lockmart progresses its 'wider gauge' C-130 concept.
Look for the C-130Hs to be extended to 2016 too as an SRP initiative... ALSPO and the contractors have already set the wheels (props?) in motion, pending Govt giving the OK.
As for the comment somewhere above that the only thing the RAAF will get to replace the Hercs in another Herc...don't be too sure. There is still a lot of dissatisfaction with the J, particularly with the engines and with the OEM's level of support. They don't make 'em like they used to...
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 926
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Given the apparent cost anticipated for an A400M vs the cost of more C-17's, plus set up costs, is it not just as cheap to buy more C-17's rather than A400M's, as counterimntuitive as it may seem at first.
I relise a fleet structure of:-
ADF airlift c.2028
5-6 x C-17
+10-12 more C-17
5 x KC-30A
0 x A400M
12-16 x C-27J
looks like something from an airpower dreamers fertile imagination but if it costs the same why not?
I guess a problem with this is C-17 production longevity.
I relise a fleet structure of:-
ADF airlift c.2028
5-6 x C-17
+10-12 more C-17
5 x KC-30A
0 x A400M
12-16 x C-27J
looks like something from an airpower dreamers fertile imagination but if it costs the same why not?
I guess a problem with this is C-17 production longevity.
Last edited by rjtjrt; 9th Mar 2011 at 23:03. Reason: Further Thought
Thread Starter
On the news that Australia has offered military airlift assets if required to Libyan crisis!
I guess we feel that our C-17 fleet [of four] and our hard pressed C-130's can be in all places at once.
I guess we feel that our C-17 fleet [of four] and our hard pressed C-130's can be in all places at once.
The news reporting I heard was the possibility of making a commitment of 4 x C-17s to support a NFZ. I wonder if PM Gillard (at the UN today) has checked with Def Min (who is in London today) or with CDF. We own 4 x C-17s, that does not mean we can deploy 4. Could probably deploy 2. I would suggest politicians don't understand this. But it's a good time to push the argument to acquire a further 2.
But it's a good time to push the argument to acquire a further 2.