RAAF Caribou Replacement
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 926
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RAAF Caribou Replacement
OK not the same performance as a Caribou but good enough for the price, availability, worldwide spares availability, fuel used.
John
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 76
Posts: 1,561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely you jest!
Have you ever got up close to a Caribou? Okay, the first three letters are the same, so that if you say it fast, Caribou and Caravan sort of match, but that is about it. There would be some sort of 'Crrrk!' noise and then your Caribou replacement would be broken, either just after loading it or else just after landing it, I think.
How about the new Buffalo those fun/loving people at Viking want to build? Now you are talking!
How about the new Buffalo those fun/loving people at Viking want to build? Now you are talking!
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
Can someone (pref Ex RAAF) please what the Caribou (and Nomads) was originally purchased for in Australia.
Was it just utility transport ?
Were they any use for Combat operations and would a similar aircraft be in the future or too susceptable to GtoA missiles and other hostile fire ? (I have been in them a number of times and found them damn slow, although a running extraction (the aircraft landed and didn't stop and we had to run and jump on it) was an interesting way of boarding one.
Would Helos (if we had enough) not be a better option than replacing the Caribou ?
Just asking open questions.
Was it just utility transport ?
Were they any use for Combat operations and would a similar aircraft be in the future or too susceptable to GtoA missiles and other hostile fire ? (I have been in them a number of times and found them damn slow, although a running extraction (the aircraft landed and didn't stop and we had to run and jump on it) was an interesting way of boarding one.
Would Helos (if we had enough) not be a better option than replacing the Caribou ?
Just asking open questions.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 926
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chucks
"Have you ever got up close to a Caribou? "
Yes - very close very often at one point. How close have you been?.
As I said OK not a Caribou but good enough for the price, especially when compared to C-27 or C-295 as a Caribou replacement. It could be a very useful aircraft.
This can do the stuff we need to in PNG that the other 2 can't.
So maybe not a Caribou replacement, maybe a better alternative to a Caribou replacement.
Porter should be re-acquired.
500N - a decent number of CH-47 and a few more C-130 could be a Caribou replacement, better than C-295 or C-27. Or maybe some C-47's as Caribou replacement!
John
"Have you ever got up close to a Caribou? "
Yes - very close very often at one point. How close have you been?.
As I said OK not a Caribou but good enough for the price, especially when compared to C-27 or C-295 as a Caribou replacement. It could be a very useful aircraft.
This can do the stuff we need to in PNG that the other 2 can't.
So maybe not a Caribou replacement, maybe a better alternative to a Caribou replacement.
Porter should be re-acquired.
500N - a decent number of CH-47 and a few more C-130 could be a Caribou replacement, better than C-295 or C-27. Or maybe some C-47's as Caribou replacement!
John
500N
I guess bang for buck.
A lot of things can carry more, go further and faster but not much apart from helo’s could get in where Caribou’s could. Helo’s generally cost considerably more, not only to buy but maintain and when you start getting to the same payload as a Caribou considerably more expensive. At one time (some time ago) you would send off three Chinook’s for a task to be assured one would make it.
I guess bang for buck.
A lot of things can carry more, go further and faster but not much apart from helo’s could get in where Caribou’s could. Helo’s generally cost considerably more, not only to buy but maintain and when you start getting to the same payload as a Caribou considerably more expensive. At one time (some time ago) you would send off three Chinook’s for a task to be assured one would make it.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: OZ
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The caribou was bought in a time when the performance of helicopters were not as good as now. It was a tactical transport that was designed to carry troops and supplies forward from main operating base where a larger aircraft (ie c-130) could not get into to. A job nowadays done by helicopters.
Rough and rugged, a landing gear built like a brick sh*thouse and until it got really old - cheap and economical to operate. Running on avgas at 600lbs/hour it didn't use much gas. Oil though could be up to 2 gallons per hour!! But with a flight eningeer on board and a fly away kit the old bus used to just keep on going.
Did they go to war - below is cut and pasted from the RAAF website:
"The initial involvement was the Caribou aircraft of RAAF Transport Flight Vietnam (renamed No. 35 Squadron on 1 June 1966) that arrived at Vung Tau on 8 August 1964. The unit operated ‘in country’ until 26 February 1972. ‘Wallaby Airlines’, as the unit was affectionately called, operated a variety of missions ranging from daily freight runs to Saigon to the support (sometimes under enemy fire) of special forces units. Three Caribous were destroyed (one by enemy mortar fire at That Son on 29 March 1970) and another two had to be returned to Australia for major repairs
The Air Force was part of the UN Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan from March 1975 until January 1979. No 38 Squadron operated the Caribou and 12 crew members based on rotation at Rawalpindi, Pakistan, and Srinigar, Kashmir, flying re-supply and border patrols. The Caribou, with a fully loaded ceiling of 21,000 feet, was operating in an area where 33 mountains topped 25,000 feet and weather conditions varied from dust to snow"
Do we need a replacement - probably not as a lot of the tasking can now be done by rotary wing. Instead how about some more J's and C-17's, retire the H's. Now that would be nice...
Frazzled
Rough and rugged, a landing gear built like a brick sh*thouse and until it got really old - cheap and economical to operate. Running on avgas at 600lbs/hour it didn't use much gas. Oil though could be up to 2 gallons per hour!! But with a flight eningeer on board and a fly away kit the old bus used to just keep on going.
Did they go to war - below is cut and pasted from the RAAF website:
"The initial involvement was the Caribou aircraft of RAAF Transport Flight Vietnam (renamed No. 35 Squadron on 1 June 1966) that arrived at Vung Tau on 8 August 1964. The unit operated ‘in country’ until 26 February 1972. ‘Wallaby Airlines’, as the unit was affectionately called, operated a variety of missions ranging from daily freight runs to Saigon to the support (sometimes under enemy fire) of special forces units. Three Caribous were destroyed (one by enemy mortar fire at That Son on 29 March 1970) and another two had to be returned to Australia for major repairs
The Air Force was part of the UN Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan from March 1975 until January 1979. No 38 Squadron operated the Caribou and 12 crew members based on rotation at Rawalpindi, Pakistan, and Srinigar, Kashmir, flying re-supply and border patrols. The Caribou, with a fully loaded ceiling of 21,000 feet, was operating in an area where 33 mountains topped 25,000 feet and weather conditions varied from dust to snow"
Do we need a replacement - probably not as a lot of the tasking can now be done by rotary wing. Instead how about some more J's and C-17's, retire the H's. Now that would be nice...
Frazzled
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Someone will surely correct me if I've got it wrong, but I think it was the first three 'bous the RAAF got that never made it to Australia. During the loooooong flight from Canada to Australia, long way round, as I recall, eastwards rather than westwards, (and no autopilot, remember, apart from a very Heath Robinson jury-rigged bungee cord I'm told was often employed in the cruise on the delivery flights), they were diverted to Vietnam to begin the RAAF commitment there.
Close Andu, but no cigar.
The first three were A4-134, 140, 147: and they arrived Aust April 1964. So did the next 3: A4-152, 159, 164, arriving June 1964.
But the next two lots of 3 were diverted from Butterworth (Malaysia) to South Vietnam in July 1964: A4-171, 173, 179, 185, 191 and 193.
The first three were A4-134, 140, 147: and they arrived Aust April 1964. So did the next 3: A4-152, 159, 164, arriving June 1964.
But the next two lots of 3 were diverted from Butterworth (Malaysia) to South Vietnam in July 1964: A4-171, 173, 179, 185, 191 and 193.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was in 38 Det A at Moresby Airport late in 1968, or there abouts, when the very last Caribou overnighted thru there on it's delivery flight.
There were so many fuel bladders in the back that the crew had to use the side escape hatches to get in/out!
Great times...
EW73
There were so many fuel bladders in the back that the crew had to use the side escape hatches to get in/out!
Great times...
EW73
It wasn't the last one EW73, there were 3 more attrition replacements delivered over 1969-1971. The one you saw was probably A4-264 delivered in mid 68.
The next was A4-275 delivered mid 69, followed by -285 late 69, and -299 (the last) in mid 1971.
The next was A4-275 delivered mid 69, followed by -285 late 69, and -299 (the last) in mid 1971.
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
A question for you.
Keeping the cost of the unit out of the equation for the time being, would the V-22 Osprey be a good idea for Australia,
1. In general ?
2. As a replacement for the Caribou ?
.
Keeping the cost of the unit out of the equation for the time being, would the V-22 Osprey be a good idea for Australia,
1. In general ?
2. As a replacement for the Caribou ?
.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Great Southern Land
Age: 57
Posts: 434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe that's something only our USMC colleagues are qualified enough to answer. I can't help thinking less of procurement and operation cost, but of opportunity cost; if the V-22 were considered, what would be overlooked or foregone in order to fund it, man it, etc?
The Caribou's departure looks (from my lowly place in the system) to have left a gaping hole in logistical capability affecting Army (others as well no doubt, but I don't have visibility of that). That doesn't mean a direct airframe replacement 'like for like' - I wonder if the solution is more 'Nomad Plus' replacement than Caribou replacement.
My reasoning is that all the 'similar to Caribou' capabilities are similar to Caribou in size - C-27; CH-47; 500N's hypothetical V-22; C-295; whatever. Thus the numbers procured, the operating costs, the centralised basing, etc, all ball park. Something smaller, simpler and much, much cheaper, on the other hand, would have some major attractions. Not least of which (and I stress this is from my green skin junior officer perspective) would be Army ownership, and allocation in sufficient numbers down to even Brigade level.
Defence has become so rigid and assets so costly and scarce that most units don't bother trying to get access to even Army-owned RW lift for collective training or even MRE. In Australia, with its crappy long poorly maintained roads, HUGE distances, and geographically dispersed and remote training areas!
The entire formal tasking process is so daunting, and so many planets have to align, often over a year in advance, and keep realigning, with so much beyond the control of even Bde commanders, that we don't bother.
A modest number of really cheap systems for liaison, aerial delivery, surveillance, patrol insertion, AME, would be a massive boost to the quality of training and to capability for DFACA, DACC, and STABOPS tasking.
Won't happen of course
The Caribou's departure looks (from my lowly place in the system) to have left a gaping hole in logistical capability affecting Army (others as well no doubt, but I don't have visibility of that). That doesn't mean a direct airframe replacement 'like for like' - I wonder if the solution is more 'Nomad Plus' replacement than Caribou replacement.
My reasoning is that all the 'similar to Caribou' capabilities are similar to Caribou in size - C-27; CH-47; 500N's hypothetical V-22; C-295; whatever. Thus the numbers procured, the operating costs, the centralised basing, etc, all ball park. Something smaller, simpler and much, much cheaper, on the other hand, would have some major attractions. Not least of which (and I stress this is from my green skin junior officer perspective) would be Army ownership, and allocation in sufficient numbers down to even Brigade level.
Defence has become so rigid and assets so costly and scarce that most units don't bother trying to get access to even Army-owned RW lift for collective training or even MRE. In Australia, with its crappy long poorly maintained roads, HUGE distances, and geographically dispersed and remote training areas!
The entire formal tasking process is so daunting, and so many planets have to align, often over a year in advance, and keep realigning, with so much beyond the control of even Bde commanders, that we don't bother.A modest number of really cheap systems for liaison, aerial delivery, surveillance, patrol insertion, AME, would be a massive boost to the quality of training and to capability for DFACA, DACC, and STABOPS tasking.
Won't happen of course
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LTDT, you make a lot of common sense.
The very same argument could (and should?) be applied to rotary wing assets. 95% of Army (and civil assistance) RW tasking could - and should - be done by a cheap and simple 'Kingswood' (or maybe even moreso, a 'Corolla') equivalent helicopter, certainly not the oversized European 'Rolls Royce/Ferrari' we cannot even get to an operational status and, even if it could be made to work, we cannot afford to operate in meaningful numbers so that most units simply have to go without RW support.
I don't know how many saw the Prime Monster's (sic) speech farewelling the recently retired CDF, but after reading the article below, (and the comments following it), it would appear that there are some out there who are not quite so enamoured with AM Houston's performance in the role.
http://elpdefensenews.b l o g s p o t.com/2011/06/great-believer-depends-on-faith-to-see.html (Delete the spaces between the word that Pprune won't accept.)
The very same argument could (and should?) be applied to rotary wing assets. 95% of Army (and civil assistance) RW tasking could - and should - be done by a cheap and simple 'Kingswood' (or maybe even moreso, a 'Corolla') equivalent helicopter, certainly not the oversized European 'Rolls Royce/Ferrari' we cannot even get to an operational status and, even if it could be made to work, we cannot afford to operate in meaningful numbers so that most units simply have to go without RW support.
I don't know how many saw the Prime Monster's (sic) speech farewelling the recently retired CDF, but after reading the article below, (and the comments following it), it would appear that there are some out there who are not quite so enamoured with AM Houston's performance in the role.
http://elpdefensenews.b l o g s p o t.com/2011/06/great-believer-depends-on-faith-to-see.html (Delete the spaces between the word that Pprune won't accept.)
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Oz
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From what I'm hearing, the Caribou replacement may be abandoned altogether as, as most of you know, you really can't replace the Caribou. Things such as Twin Otters etc have been considered, but you really couldn't equip these to operate in a war zone. Caravan isn't such a silly idea, but a twin would be preferred for multi-engine streaming purposes, hence 38SQN's King Airs.
There will be no more Js, but there may be a 6th C-17 on the horizon. The H fleet will be shrunk with some retained until 2016+ and the rest offered to neighbours not too far to the north.
As for the Viking Buffalo suggestion...first you lot call for Australia to buy off the shelf, then someone else calls for us to be lead customer (and hence, underwriter!) for a modernised 40 year old design! Wow!
There will be no more Js, but there may be a 6th C-17 on the horizon. The H fleet will be shrunk with some retained until 2016+ and the rest offered to neighbours not too far to the north.
As for the Viking Buffalo suggestion...first you lot call for Australia to buy off the shelf, then someone else calls for us to be lead customer (and hence, underwriter!) for a modernised 40 year old design! Wow!
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
Why are we not buying any more Herc's, or only no more J's ?
Re Off the Shelf, that was one of the reasons I posed the question re the V-22
to see what responses, even though it is quite a specialised aircraft and in operation in limited numbers.
I can see why people are saying more CH-47's.
Re Off the Shelf, that was one of the reasons I posed the question re the V-22
to see what responses, even though it is quite a specialised aircraft and in operation in limited numbers.
I can see why people are saying more CH-47's.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Oz
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
V-22 was also considered a few years ago, but it never made the "yeah, but seriously" list. It's too expensive to buy and with the numbers we could afford, too expensive to support.
Hercs are good until you need to put anything up-armoured in them, then its either too heavy or it wont fit and has to be broken down. We'll keep the Js till they're knackered, and then replace them with A400M or whatever the yank equivalent is by then in the mid 2020s. And before you lot mutter "here we go again" with a European buy, the A400M is an awesome bit of gear and we won't be lead customer on it!
I hear there are also mutterings about sourcing an additional (well used) CH-47D or two to replace the machine lost in Afghanistan recently - not sure of it/they'll be upgraded to 5/5A standard.
Hercs are good until you need to put anything up-armoured in them, then its either too heavy or it wont fit and has to be broken down. We'll keep the Js till they're knackered, and then replace them with A400M or whatever the yank equivalent is by then in the mid 2020s. And before you lot mutter "here we go again" with a European buy, the A400M is an awesome bit of gear and we won't be lead customer on it!
I hear there are also mutterings about sourcing an additional (well used) CH-47D or two to replace the machine lost in Afghanistan recently - not sure of it/they'll be upgraded to 5/5A standard.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyone who ignores hourly operating costs (to say nothing of purchase price per unit), as you'd have to to suggest Australia should go with the V-22, isn't acknowledging what will soon become a very real fact of life - that dollars for Defence will become harder and harder to come by in the not too distant future.