The C27's are a coming
Like this - Do that
To be honest I think it's about time the Army Air Dispatchers caught up with the rest of the aerial delivery world. The US mil are using GPS guidance units on ram-air cargo parachutes for pinpoint airdrop and here we are still thinking about LAPES and all that other stuff that puts high value aircraft in danger of being brought down by low value weapons.
This is a vital capability and Im glad it's coming. Once again we may be able to operate in our own region. I think holistic change is required though, not just platform change; and I fear that will not happen until we actually face a real threat in our own region. Sadly the Air Dispatch fraternity has been it's own worst enemy at times.
To be honest I think it's about time the Army Air Dispatchers caught up with the rest of the aerial delivery world. The US mil are using GPS guidance units on ram-air cargo parachutes for pinpoint airdrop and here we are still thinking about LAPES and all that other stuff that puts high value aircraft in danger of being brought down by low value weapons.
This is a vital capability and Im glad it's coming. Once again we may be able to operate in our own region. I think holistic change is required though, not just platform change; and I fear that will not happen until we actually face a real threat in our own region. Sadly the Air Dispatch fraternity has been it's own worst enemy at times.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Great Southern Land
Age: 57
Posts: 434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trojan
Agreed that changes should come, and most expect that changes WILL come. What changes are going to be made? The JPADS approach has its fans but YIKES it's expensive. There's a snowball's chance in Hell that this will be done in the ADF other than have it approved and done once a year ... just to show it can be. Imagine how many times each year we'll drop boxes of rocks at $500k per sortie (aircraft cost not included)
The lightweight, low-cost disposable systems look promising; I have no idea if ALSPO or AMTDU have done work much in that regard.
LAPES may very well have gone; it certainly hasn't been done for a few years.
Will shoot you a PM to discuss further.
Cheers
Agreed that changes should come, and most expect that changes WILL come. What changes are going to be made? The JPADS approach has its fans but YIKES it's expensive. There's a snowball's chance in Hell that this will be done in the ADF other than have it approved and done once a year ... just to show it can be. Imagine how many times each year we'll drop boxes of rocks at $500k per sortie (aircraft cost not included)
The lightweight, low-cost disposable systems look promising; I have no idea if ALSPO or AMTDU have done work much in that regard.
LAPES may very well have gone; it certainly hasn't been done for a few years.
Will shoot you a PM to discuss further.
Cheers
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry guys a very ordinary post from me. When I said replacing H models I didn't mean capability i meant where the aircraft would be based. I will be more specific in the future.
I have also heard the 35SQN rumour...
For those who think 32SQN will update to the 38SQN Kingairs it is not a simple swap due to the mods required for the ACO training hardware. Besides tender has gone out for proline 2 SIM in East Sale.
Wessex 19 i guess only time will tell..
I have also heard the 35SQN rumour...
For those who think 32SQN will update to the 38SQN Kingairs it is not a simple swap due to the mods required for the ACO training hardware. Besides tender has gone out for proline 2 SIM in East Sale.
Wessex 19 i guess only time will tell..
The tender for the Sim is only for 5 years. The changeover was mentioned by the powers that be in pre-qualification meetings.
Anyway the ADF needs some comms acft to support the troops so keeping two lots would be better..
Anyway the ADF needs some comms acft to support the troops so keeping two lots would be better..
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: North Arm Cove, NSW, Australia
Age: 86
Posts: 229
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Short Range Transport
Hi TBM-L; re your post #18. Defence White Paper 2009 says: The ADF's Primary Operational Environment - "Our strategic interests and defence posture suggest a primary focus for the ADF on tasks in our geographical vicinity (my emphasis). To guide defence planning, the Government has decided that the ADF's primary operational environment extends from the eastern Indian Ocean to the island states of Polynesia, and from the equator to the Southern Ocean..." Ergo, the whole AO for the ADF has not shifted, although some seem to be dreaming about trundling largish expeditionary forces around to fight more wars in faraway places.
Considering the pretty wobbly political scenarios among island States throughout the SW Pacific (PNG for example), it seems more likely than not that Australian intervention might be requested at some stage to help quell insurrection/ insurgency.
The traditional military short range transport (SRT) function has not changed, this generally being to provide cost-effective intra-theatre direct support; and neither has the harsh and difficult near neighbourhood operating environment altered. Sure the Chinook can do better is some respects; but generally speaking not always cost-effectively. SRT elements are usually logically based within an AO so your contention regarding longish range utilisation is irrelevant.
Regarding SRT helos, when the MRH90 (and Tiger) finally get into service, the ADF will soon realise the compound overhead costs of trying to operate them in remote environments and rue the path being taken with so-called helo fleet rationalisation. Operating costs for the ADF are going to soar prodigiously over the next few years and the huge reckless spend on defence will have to begin shrinking pretty soon.
The Caribou performed admirably in PNG and an enhanced turbo version would excel. I would wager that such a breed will emerge elsewhere in the world, as for the Dakota/BT-67. I think like many, you are ignoring the lessons of 60 plus years of military air operations in the nearby challenging wet tropics environs since WW2.
Considering the pretty wobbly political scenarios among island States throughout the SW Pacific (PNG for example), it seems more likely than not that Australian intervention might be requested at some stage to help quell insurrection/ insurgency.
The traditional military short range transport (SRT) function has not changed, this generally being to provide cost-effective intra-theatre direct support; and neither has the harsh and difficult near neighbourhood operating environment altered. Sure the Chinook can do better is some respects; but generally speaking not always cost-effectively. SRT elements are usually logically based within an AO so your contention regarding longish range utilisation is irrelevant.
Regarding SRT helos, when the MRH90 (and Tiger) finally get into service, the ADF will soon realise the compound overhead costs of trying to operate them in remote environments and rue the path being taken with so-called helo fleet rationalisation. Operating costs for the ADF are going to soar prodigiously over the next few years and the huge reckless spend on defence will have to begin shrinking pretty soon.
The Caribou performed admirably in PNG and an enhanced turbo version would excel. I would wager that such a breed will emerge elsewhere in the world, as for the Dakota/BT-67. I think like many, you are ignoring the lessons of 60 plus years of military air operations in the nearby challenging wet tropics environs since WW2.
Last edited by Bushranger 71; 30th Dec 2011 at 02:04.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of their many complaints about RAAF support – (or their perceived lack thereof) – by the Army when the RAAF provided the helicopter support, the one that drew the most passion from Army was the RAAF’s unwillingness to leave their air assets (usually Iroquois and Caribous) out in the field, right on the FEBA, overnight. (I think ‘FEBA’ might be an out of date term today?) In the late 70’s and into the 80’s, the RAAF bent overboard to accommodate the Army over this demand, so that we saw, (I think ridiculously), Caribou crews digging shell scrapes beside their aircraft before they retired for the night to get their ‘rest’.
There was a double bunger effect in this misguided policy.
(1) The Army unit the Caribou crews was supporting would be doing its (only) two weeks in the field for the year, after which, it would retire back to its base, take a week to clean and service its equipment before everyone went on a well-earned leave break after living rough in the field. The Caribou crews would return Richmond or Townsville (where their aircraft could be properly serviced, which they couldn’t in the field) and be back in the field with a different aeroplane two or three days later supporting another Army unit for two more weeks, and so on ad infinitum for the whole year.
(2) No one ever seemed to ask the question how any potential enemy could fail to miss the massive ‘mortar magnet’ of a Caribou tail (even camouflaged, as they attempted to do) sticking up like a bloody beacon in the countryside or how the poor bloody groundies could hope to do anything but the most basic servicing on their aircraft after dark in a tactical environment demanding no or minimal lighting.
(3) As unfashionable as it was to say it, (and continues to be to this day, it would seem), this left crews dangerously unrested when forced to fly day after day (and all too often, night after night, sometimes with NVGs) in very demanding circumstances. It’s a fact, not an opinion, that this ridiculous situation lead to the death of a very experienced Iroquois crew who were killed in a CFIT accident when approaching an aerodrome at night after attempting (the operative word being ‘attempting’) to rest during the day for days on end in tents in the middle of a busy Army encampment in near 50 degree heat.
What makes this old Army sticking point and myth (“the RAAF work Tuesday to Thursday, from 1030 to 1330 and insist on staying in five star hotels”) even more problematic is the equipment they’ve purchased since taking over the rotary wing element. Without exception, it’s been ultra high tech ‘hangar queen’ equipment that will demand a high level of expert maintenance on a daily basis and which will be almost impossible to do in the field - and much of this maintenance, thanks to the horribly misguided policy that a recently-retired CDF and some before him allowed to be implemented, saw much of the ADF’s maintenance ‘outsourced’ to civilian contractors.
I wait with bated breath to see if – or how – they’re going to get civilians living in the field to service the Tigers and MRH90s.
The end result will be that the glossy, plastic wunderfleigers will be, (just as the RAAF Iroquois and Caribous did 40 years ago), be returning to a main base most nights if not every night so that they can be kept operating. Surely to God they're not going to insist that C-27 crews dig themselves shell scraps and sleep under their aircraft wing as the Caribou crews did in the 80s and beyond?
There was a double bunger effect in this misguided policy.
(1) The Army unit the Caribou crews was supporting would be doing its (only) two weeks in the field for the year, after which, it would retire back to its base, take a week to clean and service its equipment before everyone went on a well-earned leave break after living rough in the field. The Caribou crews would return Richmond or Townsville (where their aircraft could be properly serviced, which they couldn’t in the field) and be back in the field with a different aeroplane two or three days later supporting another Army unit for two more weeks, and so on ad infinitum for the whole year.
(2) No one ever seemed to ask the question how any potential enemy could fail to miss the massive ‘mortar magnet’ of a Caribou tail (even camouflaged, as they attempted to do) sticking up like a bloody beacon in the countryside or how the poor bloody groundies could hope to do anything but the most basic servicing on their aircraft after dark in a tactical environment demanding no or minimal lighting.
(3) As unfashionable as it was to say it, (and continues to be to this day, it would seem), this left crews dangerously unrested when forced to fly day after day (and all too often, night after night, sometimes with NVGs) in very demanding circumstances. It’s a fact, not an opinion, that this ridiculous situation lead to the death of a very experienced Iroquois crew who were killed in a CFIT accident when approaching an aerodrome at night after attempting (the operative word being ‘attempting’) to rest during the day for days on end in tents in the middle of a busy Army encampment in near 50 degree heat.
What makes this old Army sticking point and myth (“the RAAF work Tuesday to Thursday, from 1030 to 1330 and insist on staying in five star hotels”) even more problematic is the equipment they’ve purchased since taking over the rotary wing element. Without exception, it’s been ultra high tech ‘hangar queen’ equipment that will demand a high level of expert maintenance on a daily basis and which will be almost impossible to do in the field - and much of this maintenance, thanks to the horribly misguided policy that a recently-retired CDF and some before him allowed to be implemented, saw much of the ADF’s maintenance ‘outsourced’ to civilian contractors.
I wait with bated breath to see if – or how – they’re going to get civilians living in the field to service the Tigers and MRH90s.
The end result will be that the glossy, plastic wunderfleigers will be, (just as the RAAF Iroquois and Caribous did 40 years ago), be returning to a main base most nights if not every night so that they can be kept operating. Surely to God they're not going to insist that C-27 crews dig themselves shell scraps and sleep under their aircraft wing as the Caribou crews did in the 80s and beyond?
I'm with you, BR71, in that I believe a turbine engined STOL cargo lifter like a re-engined Caribou would be a very capable and cost-effective way of continuing to fulfil our obligations in disaster relief and so on around the region, not to mention supporting exercises and operations as they arise.
Not only that, it would provide great opportunities for young aircrew to develop and maintain skills by flying a lot of hours (and interesting, challenging hours at that) rather than the kind of bare currency maintenance that is often the lot of the boggie on expensive, maintenance intensive types.
Wiley, I remember well those days of digging shell scrapes and wondering about the logic that dictated I should lower my hutchie during the day so the 'enemy' wouldn't be alerted by its presence, notwithstanding the towering Bou tails and rotor heads of our 35 SQN Iroquois parked nearby. A lot of shoulder-shrugging and 'ours is not to reason why'-ing went on!
Not only that, it would provide great opportunities for young aircrew to develop and maintain skills by flying a lot of hours (and interesting, challenging hours at that) rather than the kind of bare currency maintenance that is often the lot of the boggie on expensive, maintenance intensive types.
Wiley, I remember well those days of digging shell scrapes and wondering about the logic that dictated I should lower my hutchie during the day so the 'enemy' wouldn't be alerted by its presence, notwithstanding the towering Bou tails and rotor heads of our 35 SQN Iroquois parked nearby. A lot of shoulder-shrugging and 'ours is not to reason why'-ing went on!
It is of interest that no other country believes that their Air Force should operate 40+ year old re-engined Caribous or the like. Why would the ADF?
Let's enjoy the memories and move on. I too spent many a night in the boonies under the wing of a Caribou and if that had been the real thing then all would have been lost....
Let's enjoy the memories and move on. I too spent many a night in the boonies under the wing of a Caribou and if that had been the real thing then all would have been lost....
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TBM, I have to agree... if we'd ever gone to war using the tactics employed back then, we wouldn't be having this debate about refurbishing 40+ year old airframes, because every one of them would have been destroyed the very first night they were deployed - to say nothing of the poor bloody crews sheltering in shallow shell scrapes under their wings or the unfortunate grunts camped within 300 metres of each huge Caribou tail.
But let's not forget what the real plan of action was - it got those softie Brylcreem Boys out of their hotel rooms and roughing it out in the field. Unfortunately, from too many comments I've seen here and elsewhere, the myth Wiley refers to above has been transplanted all too successfully into the minds of far too many of the young pilots in today's AAVN.
I wouldn't mind a beer for each of the Sundays I pre-positioned so as to be on station with the Army unit I was to support at 0900 Monday morning - not to mention how many weekends I flew in support of CMF/Reserve units. We usually got home on the Friday though, (if frequently quite late), 'cos 1530 Friday was sacrosanct - POETS* day for every grunt unit I ever worked with.
(POETS day: "Piss Off Early, Tomorrow's Saturday")
But let's not forget what the real plan of action was - it got those softie Brylcreem Boys out of their hotel rooms and roughing it out in the field. Unfortunately, from too many comments I've seen here and elsewhere, the myth Wiley refers to above has been transplanted all too successfully into the minds of far too many of the young pilots in today's AAVN.
I wouldn't mind a beer for each of the Sundays I pre-positioned so as to be on station with the Army unit I was to support at 0900 Monday morning - not to mention how many weekends I flew in support of CMF/Reserve units. We usually got home on the Friday though, (if frequently quite late), 'cos 1530 Friday was sacrosanct - POETS* day for every grunt unit I ever worked with.
(POETS day: "Piss Off Early, Tomorrow's Saturday")
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Great Southern Land
Age: 57
Posts: 434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, so let's forget what it replaces 
or doesn't.
What does it bring to the table? Triple spar wings, Blue Force Tracker, RWR, adaptive countermeasures, software-defined radios, IFF, encrypted comms .... all the stuff needed to do clever and sneaky peaky things over hostile terrain (not just hostile physical terrain).
I like the sound of cheap & cheerful old busses like Iroquois and Caribou ... but I also like the sound of the Spartan. And if others refuse to budge intellectually than so can I: I hope my diggers get to push sh1t out the back of them - Ronnie Loadie Mafia - and progress - be damned
or doesn't.What does it bring to the table? Triple spar wings, Blue Force Tracker, RWR, adaptive countermeasures, software-defined radios, IFF, encrypted comms .... all the stuff needed to do clever and sneaky peaky things over hostile terrain (not just hostile physical terrain).
I like the sound of cheap & cheerful old busses like Iroquois and Caribou ... but I also like the sound of the Spartan. And if others refuse to budge intellectually than so can I: I hope my diggers get to push sh1t out the back of them - Ronnie Loadie Mafia - and progress - be damned
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: North Arm Cove, NSW, Australia
Age: 86
Posts: 229
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TBM-L, Andu; just in case you have not noticed, Australia is one of few countries in the world boring ahead with unaffordable defence expenditure toward capabilities based on a questionable defence policy. Nowhere in air capabilities planning has there seemed any intent to provide the most cost-effective (optimised) hardware that will adequately do the job and so make the defence dollar go further. It just astounds me that some more recent retirees and many serving members seem blase regarding the continued reckless splashing of taxpayer dollars.
Well; it is all going to catch up somewhere down the track and the ADF will predictably become somewhat neutered because many of its overly-ambitious expensive capability programs will not be able to be maintained because operating costs will soar and some military roles may even have to be curtailed. In harder times coming, taxpayers are not going to be very supportive of increased defence expenditure by an organisation that a Senate Committee has already deemed dysfunctional.
I guess we will just have to wait and see which sensible nation around the world reintroduces the Caribou into military service, for cost-effective reasons. Maybe it will be Air America (the CIA) as they found them very useful previously! Have another peep at this site: Pen Turbo Aviation
Well; it is all going to catch up somewhere down the track and the ADF will predictably become somewhat neutered because many of its overly-ambitious expensive capability programs will not be able to be maintained because operating costs will soar and some military roles may even have to be curtailed. In harder times coming, taxpayers are not going to be very supportive of increased defence expenditure by an organisation that a Senate Committee has already deemed dysfunctional.
I guess we will just have to wait and see which sensible nation around the world reintroduces the Caribou into military service, for cost-effective reasons. Maybe it will be Air America (the CIA) as they found them very useful previously! Have another peep at this site: Pen Turbo Aviation
Last edited by Bushranger 71; 30th Dec 2011 at 18:38. Reason: Additional thought
B71, your comments are as always interesting but let's look at the facts. No first or second rate Air Force or Army has gone ahead with Huey 11 or Turbine Caribou. Both have been around for a long time. The first turbine Caribou flew 10-15 years ago and no takers. The same could be said for the S-2 Tracker. Mighty ship in their day but only Brasil converted a handful to turbines and a few more got a new lease as turbine S-2T firebombers mainly because the airframes were given to the CDF [California] and Conair in Canada did a few more.
The F27/HS748 types mostly replaced the DC-3 but they're just about extinct as well.
Your argument on defence expenditure might make some sense but I think in Australia the mob in charge today are wasting billions of $$$$ on pink batts/BER and other social issues. At least the ADF gets a new set of toys which if they wait they may never get and we are worse off.....
Airlift with the RAAF is really pretty good with KC-30/C-17/C-130J and now C-27J
Can they keep them flying? Well only the politicians know that!
PS: what has Amrock Aviation, new "owner" of the last 7 'bous done lately with them??
The F27/HS748 types mostly replaced the DC-3 but they're just about extinct as well.
Your argument on defence expenditure might make some sense but I think in Australia the mob in charge today are wasting billions of $$$$ on pink batts/BER and other social issues. At least the ADF gets a new set of toys which if they wait they may never get and we are worse off.....
Airlift with the RAAF is really pretty good with KC-30/C-17/C-130J and now C-27J
Can they keep them flying? Well only the politicians know that!
PS: what has Amrock Aviation, new "owner" of the last 7 'bous done lately with them??
I don't think anyone is suggesting we'd send crews to sleep under Caribou wings - that was never going to work in reality, even when we practiced it.
Nor would I want to go back to trying to coax old airframes and engines to hang together just that little bit longer to get the job done - too unreliable and costly.
I'd like to see rigorous assurances given that a re-engined Caribou wouldn't run into problems with airframe fatigue as put the final nail in the RAAF Caribou coffin, but if that could be done it'd be a great asset.
We can get all theoretical about what Australia's future role in conflicts might be, but the type has proven itself over and over in the afore-mentioned disaster relief work, which is undeniably a very important part of our defence presence in the region.
The development of skilled aircrew in a relatively low-cost, capable platform is not to be dismissed either, if we're to maintain a robust pool of operators with surge capability. Instead of spending gazillions on a small number of really expensive aircraft that are hard and costly to maintain, it makes sense to me to mitigate the situation somewhat by having a cheaper machine that flies heaps of hours, does lots of work, keeps the Army happy because it can turn up reliably, and provides some of the most useful and challenging flying available to Australian crews by allowing ops into most of the strips in PNG.
As for battlefield survivability, I'd suggest a Chinook would be just as vulnerable as a turbo Caribou fitted with equivalent countermeasures.
This isn't sentimentality speaking - trying to resurrect old buggered Caribous, as we did for a long time, was a losing battle. However, the sheer usefulness of the type makes it well worth considering for replacement with a revamped, reliable equivalent.
How much is a Pen Turbo Bou, Bushy 71, do you know? I bet you could get a bunch of them for the cost of a C-27, and maintain them for a lot less.
Nor would I want to go back to trying to coax old airframes and engines to hang together just that little bit longer to get the job done - too unreliable and costly.
I'd like to see rigorous assurances given that a re-engined Caribou wouldn't run into problems with airframe fatigue as put the final nail in the RAAF Caribou coffin, but if that could be done it'd be a great asset.
We can get all theoretical about what Australia's future role in conflicts might be, but the type has proven itself over and over in the afore-mentioned disaster relief work, which is undeniably a very important part of our defence presence in the region.
The development of skilled aircrew in a relatively low-cost, capable platform is not to be dismissed either, if we're to maintain a robust pool of operators with surge capability. Instead of spending gazillions on a small number of really expensive aircraft that are hard and costly to maintain, it makes sense to me to mitigate the situation somewhat by having a cheaper machine that flies heaps of hours, does lots of work, keeps the Army happy because it can turn up reliably, and provides some of the most useful and challenging flying available to Australian crews by allowing ops into most of the strips in PNG.
As for battlefield survivability, I'd suggest a Chinook would be just as vulnerable as a turbo Caribou fitted with equivalent countermeasures.
This isn't sentimentality speaking - trying to resurrect old buggered Caribous, as we did for a long time, was a losing battle. However, the sheer usefulness of the type makes it well worth considering for replacement with a revamped, reliable equivalent.
How much is a Pen Turbo Bou, Bushy 71, do you know? I bet you could get a bunch of them for the cost of a C-27, and maintain them for a lot less.
Nor would I want to go back to trying to coax old airframes and engines to hang together just that little bit longer to get the job done - too unreliable and costly.
I bet you could get a bunch of them for the cost of a C-27, and maintain them for a lot less.
BBadinov, B71,
maybe you should update your expert knowledge of the Tiger. Disastrous? They are all go and shooting at night - what is the issue? There are a bunch of articles on the net. Your statements of how disastrous the Tiger is got me searching and alas, I found a bunch of recent articles.
MRH, no argument yet. It still seems to be in trouble. I am sure that it will be good in the end though.
I don't think anything can "replace" the Caribou. The next best thing is a Chinook with aerial refuelling capability, after that the C27J. But I doubt the Air Force would want to give up a Sqn to the Army (can't say I blame them). They seem stuck in the dark ages (the army that is).
Cheers,
Doors Off
maybe you should update your expert knowledge of the Tiger. Disastrous? They are all go and shooting at night - what is the issue? There are a bunch of articles on the net. Your statements of how disastrous the Tiger is got me searching and alas, I found a bunch of recent articles.
MRH, no argument yet. It still seems to be in trouble. I am sure that it will be good in the end though.
I don't think anything can "replace" the Caribou. The next best thing is a Chinook with aerial refuelling capability, after that the C27J. But I doubt the Air Force would want to give up a Sqn to the Army (can't say I blame them). They seem stuck in the dark ages (the army that is).
Cheers,
Doors Off
I like the idea of an upgraded "Bou". It is called the Buffalo, and if the RAAF, asked for new builds with either PW150's or Ae2100's in conjunction with a RCAF FWSAR requirement you would have what you need for short/nasty/brutish ops
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: East Coast
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And we should re-engine the pigs for supercruise and strap slammers to them....
Though, they do roll the old big-donk Canberra out of the shed for a spin here every now and then...
At least the C27 will work, so from an acquisition perspective, it's way ahead of numerous other problem children.
Though, they do roll the old big-donk Canberra out of the shed for a spin here every now and then...
At least the C27 will work, so from an acquisition perspective, it's way ahead of numerous other problem children.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: North Arm Cove, NSW, Australia
Age: 86
Posts: 229
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A couple of aspects are disturbing so a final input from me this topic.
In multiple threads this forum and elsewhere, inherent apprehension seems conveyed by some who may have served in recent conflicts regarding aircraft platform survivability and risk of personnel casualties. Most types can be optimised by fitment of enhancements to improve combat readiness and hardware manufacturers usually get type certifications for new kit pretty quickly so they can sell more of their gear. But alas, Australia has largely not gone down that track as evidenced by systems deficiencies in Chinook and Blackhawk when they were first considered for deployment to Iraq and Afghanistan. And of course, useful hardware that is shed is inevitably refurbished/optimised by others for service elsewhere in the world.
Military involvement in conflict is unpredictable and nations have historically had to make best use of platforms in service. Survivability always depends more on operating practices than any other factors and there will inevitably be some equipment losses and personnel casualties in combat (521 Australians killed and 3,000 plus wounded in the Vietnam War). But one has to ponder the underlying culture within the Australian DoD when many media announcements over-emphasize the suitability of expensive new platforms for aid to civil power tertiary roles, be it disaster relief, humanitarian aid or whatever. The primary purpose for acquiring such hardware is military applications and if that is going to be subordinated, then the Australian Government is giving the ADF a warm and fuzzy 'Peace Corps' flavour.
AOTW; specific cost of a Penn-Turbo Caribou unknown, but there is some interesting discussion re cost factors at this link: http://www.ausairpower.net/DT-Turbo-Caribou-July-05.pdf . The base price for a Basler BT-67 (turbo-Dakota) is about $4.5 million, depending on how configured (see here: Frequently Asked Questions) so maybe thereabouts for a turbo-Caribou. Perhaps 5 or so for the unit price of one MRH90 or 7 for one C-27 Spartan!
That turbo-'Bou are not yet operated militarily by others matters nought if it is the most cost-effective option for fixed wing SRT operations in Australia's near neighbourhood. See the military/para-military operators for BT-67 versions (USAF gets mention).
Enough from me. Wishing all a satisfying Year 2012.
In multiple threads this forum and elsewhere, inherent apprehension seems conveyed by some who may have served in recent conflicts regarding aircraft platform survivability and risk of personnel casualties. Most types can be optimised by fitment of enhancements to improve combat readiness and hardware manufacturers usually get type certifications for new kit pretty quickly so they can sell more of their gear. But alas, Australia has largely not gone down that track as evidenced by systems deficiencies in Chinook and Blackhawk when they were first considered for deployment to Iraq and Afghanistan. And of course, useful hardware that is shed is inevitably refurbished/optimised by others for service elsewhere in the world.
Military involvement in conflict is unpredictable and nations have historically had to make best use of platforms in service. Survivability always depends more on operating practices than any other factors and there will inevitably be some equipment losses and personnel casualties in combat (521 Australians killed and 3,000 plus wounded in the Vietnam War). But one has to ponder the underlying culture within the Australian DoD when many media announcements over-emphasize the suitability of expensive new platforms for aid to civil power tertiary roles, be it disaster relief, humanitarian aid or whatever. The primary purpose for acquiring such hardware is military applications and if that is going to be subordinated, then the Australian Government is giving the ADF a warm and fuzzy 'Peace Corps' flavour.
AOTW; specific cost of a Penn-Turbo Caribou unknown, but there is some interesting discussion re cost factors at this link: http://www.ausairpower.net/DT-Turbo-Caribou-July-05.pdf . The base price for a Basler BT-67 (turbo-Dakota) is about $4.5 million, depending on how configured (see here: Frequently Asked Questions) so maybe thereabouts for a turbo-Caribou. Perhaps 5 or so for the unit price of one MRH90 or 7 for one C-27 Spartan!
That turbo-'Bou are not yet operated militarily by others matters nought if it is the most cost-effective option for fixed wing SRT operations in Australia's near neighbourhood. See the military/para-military operators for BT-67 versions (USAF gets mention).
Enough from me. Wishing all a satisfying Year 2012.
Last edited by Bushranger 71; 30th Dec 2011 at 21:22. Reason: grammar