|
Post by Calum on Feb 13, 2024 16:17:12 GMT 12
I don’t think most people in the know are giving the ADF a total pass on this and likewise not saying it’s 100% Airbus. It’s a regrettable circumstance with lots of politics in the mix. Hopefully deliveries of the Blackhawks can get rolling as well as training for pilots/ support crew completed quickly and we can move on. Looking forward to seeing those birds out of Holsworthy nearby. Over my time the ADF and particularly the RAAF has incorporated whole new generations of platforms (and whole new capabilities) C17, Growler, Supers, F35, P8, wedgetail etc etc and generally it’s gone OK. Many countries would look to the ADF with envy I’d reckon. Will be very interesting to see where the RAN surface fleet review goes but that’s another story… Edit..Defence Senate estimates tmow 14 Feb I think..should be interesting. I think the ADF are leasing 7 more EC-135T2's from the UK to give their aircraft something to fly for the next 2-3 yrs until Blackhaawk comes online. Of course they can't carry any troops.
|
|
|
Post by Calum on Feb 13, 2024 14:06:48 GMT 12
I love 10% true and the Starbaby segments in general. But a transport helicopter is not a F-16. The "it's too complicated for the argument has been used for everything from HIMARS, to ALCM's to ACTACMS to tanks... and every time it's proved false. And there is a lot (A real lot) of truth in that article. Agreed. F-16s have been well and truly debugged, and LM is able to provide replacement parts for them. Tongue firmly in cheek of course..... 46 airframes gives plenty of spare parts if you only operate 20 or so. Not sure what you're getting with software. But clearly other operators have managed using the OEM software to track maintenance etc . I suspect issues like that are more down to the ADF stuffing with things they shouldn't. It amazing me how willing people are to give them a pass on this and Tiger and try and blame everything on the platforms.
|
|
|
Post by Calum on Feb 12, 2024 14:12:45 GMT 12
There is a podcast called Ten Percent True which covers military operations. There is an episode with a former F-15e pilot, callsign "Starbaby", discussing the option of providing the Ukrainians with F-16's. He talked about the 10 years it took the Polish Airforce to become capable using their F-16's. He postulated the Ukrainians would face a similar challenge with their F-16's even taking into account the Ukraine is being offered A model Block 15 jets compared to Polish Block 52 jets. It's not a jump in a plane and go type scenario, its a change from a Russian style of flying, fighting and being to a NATO standard I suspect the Ukrainian's would have a similar such challenge with the NH-90's. Moving from ancient Mi-8s, Mi-17s to a modern, complicated helicopter with a spares problem seems like too big of an ask for a nation at war. I suspect a lot of former contractors who supported MRH90 operations with the ADF are now looking for alternative employment. A little angry and bitter perhaps, or possibly a little biased and lacking in objectivity? I love 10% true and the Starbaby segments in general. But a transport helicopter is not a F-16. The "it's too complicated for the argument has been used for everything from HIMARS, to ALCM's to ACTACMS to tanks... and every time it's proved false. And there is a lot (A real lot) of truth in that article.
|
|
|
Post by Calum on Dec 7, 2023 13:54:05 GMT 12
Will be interesting to see what the Airshows Downunder people bring to Shellharbour. So far I've seen nothing to fill me with confidence.. The only change of note so far is having to pre book parking. In my experience there was nothing wrong with the parking arrangement previously.
|
|
|
Post by Calum on Nov 14, 2023 14:07:35 GMT 12
Nice work.
|
|
|
Post by Calum on Oct 26, 2023 21:09:05 GMT 12
|
|
|
Post by Calum on Aug 29, 2023 15:09:41 GMT 12
RAAF E7 were not acquired under FMS, it was a collaboration between AusGov Boeing and BAE as the prime contractors. Did I say it was?
|
|
|
Post by Calum on Aug 23, 2023 14:48:00 GMT 12
Sounds exactly what the ADF will sign up for .... Why? I suspect they'll remember NH90 and Tiger for a long, long time... You have more faith than me Sounds exactly what the ADF will sign up for .... Why? I suspect Most ADF procurements go pretty smoothly by global standards. M1A1, Boxer, EA-18G, F-18F, E-7, ANZAC frigate upgrades, Bushmaster, etc, etc. The cost and schedule over-runs on the Hobart AWDs don't look too bad compared to a lot of programs elsewhere, even the RNZN's ANZAC frigate upgrade .. The FMS ones went as good as expected because they were proven platforms. E-7 didn't, and has never reached what was promised, there was a lot of pain as well. That said it's probably 90% of the way there and is clearly the best platform of it's type in service. And even 80% of a promised capability fielded is better than not being fielded. KC-30 had a number of issues but is also now an excellent platform. I'm not so much across the land and naval platforms as they aren't really in my sphere of interest. The SSN's and Hunter Class worry me...
|
|
|
Post by Calum on Aug 22, 2023 14:54:28 GMT 12
Great info, thanks
|
|
|
Post by Calum on Aug 22, 2023 14:53:11 GMT 12
That could be an understatement. Just my view, but I can't see the ADF signing up for a program that could easily turn into a supersonic, fixed wing, high altitude NH90 or Tiger. Sounds exactly what the ADF will sign up for ....
|
|
|
Post by Calum on Aug 21, 2023 14:56:54 GMT 12
Great info in here for us modelling nerds. Any Coastal Command Whitley Kiwi Conenc6tions that people know off (Yeah it's for a modelling project)
|
|
|
Post by Calum on Aug 10, 2023 18:10:38 GMT 12
I'm quite aware how FMS works... Which is exactly as you say . I.e the item is supplied by the US government not the OEM. In the Blackhawk case that's why we have UH-60's not S-70's. And yes you can have changes but these days they are kept as small as possible (coz it affects cost and time , both in acquisition and sustainment) and are generally for things that the ADF require to meet their safety requirements or airspace requirements, e'g the requirement for Crash Data recorders, ADS-B Out and some legacy Navids still prevalent in Australia being the most notable ones I know off. As for the F-111, well that's a great example of what not to do. Create an orphan... then up go your sustainment costs so the platform eventually becomes unaffordable to operate. Nothing of what you posted suggests that the army will go to the added expensive or hassle of requesting and paying for a configuration change just to change the colour of the helicopters. You're correct about the M1A1, but its a tank, and traditionally the army have done configuration control poorly For air platforms this is much more tightly controlled. hence why the RAN/RAAF/AAVN haven't changed the colours on the FMS aircraft they have purchased. Why would you waste time and money paying for a changle in colour, then having to manage the results of that. To me it would seem a pointless waste of money and effort. Thats not really what im saying at all, the main reason that the aircraft are coming over in the same colours as the US aircraft is it because that we have generally taken US production slots to get the aircraft as early as possible. If timing was not a factor and defence AusGov wanted changes or painted a different colour then then it would have to wait for its own production slot to become available. All recent purchase has been on the expeditors list for various reasons C17 Rhino/Growlers MH60R and even the F35 to fill a need as soon as possible just like the current Blackhawks No the reason they are coming in US colours is because they are supplied by the US Military via FMS and those colours are the ones that are approved. As for RAAF F111C the changes it made did not make it an orphan as the changes were relatively minor in the greater scheme of things. What madeit difficult to maintain was when the USAF no longer supported the F111 in service every upgrade to the F111C was then at 100% up to the RAAF to design and test. Finding parts were not the problem either even after the cold wing test as there were a number og FB111 stored out in the boneyard to keep them flying until the 2020's if needed. Structurally there was no difference between a F111A and F111C. if anything it was the FB111A for SAC that was materially different from a serviceability standpoint. AUP made it an orphan and it became incredabily expensive to support and provided such little capability (bar Airshows) - but that's for another thread.
|
|
|
Post by Calum on Aug 8, 2023 15:08:44 GMT 12
The UH-60M's are being supplied via FMS so it's very unlikely there will be any change to the colour. This would be a change to the standard USA configuration would likely be an added cost Look at all the other FMS supplied platforms, C-17, F-35, Supers, Growlers, Romeos .... All those are in the colours of the US service that supplied them. FMS doesn't mean you have to buy like for like Australian aircraft have some difference, the difference are small things like different radios. RAAF F111 were bought via FMS and they were Australinised with heavier landing gear and longer wings from the discontinued naval variant F111B and 59 M1A1 (AIM) for army are hybirds from both army and USMC modifications. If you look at that list of aircraft every aircraft ecept the F35 arrived early by the US giving up its production slots for the ADF so they could get them in a timely manor I'm quite aware how FMS works... Which is exactly as you say . I.e the item is supplied by the US government not the OEM. In the Blackhawk case that's why we have UH-60's not S-70's. And yes you can have changes but these days they are kept as small as possible (coz it affects cost and time , both in acquisition and sustainment) and are generally for things that the ADF require to meet their safety requirements or airspace requirements, e'g the requirement for Crash Data recorders, ADS-B Out and some legacy Navids still prevalent in Australia being the most notable ones I know off. As for the F-111, well that's a great example of what not to do. Create an orphan... then up go your sustainment costs so the platform eventually becomes unaffordable to operate. Nothing of what you posted suggests that the army will go to the added expensive or hassle of requesting and paying for a configuration change just to change the colour of the helicopters. You're correct about the M1A1, but its a tank, and traditionally the army have done configuration control poorly For air platforms this is much more tightly controlled. hence why the RAN/RAAF/AAVN haven't changed the colours on the FMS aircraft they have purchased. Why would you waste time and money paying for a changle in colour, then having to manage the results of that. To me it would seem a pointless waste of money and effort.
|
|
|
Post by Calum on Aug 7, 2023 14:16:26 GMT 12
The UH-60M's are being supplied via FMS so it's very unlikely there will be any change to the colour. This would be a change to the standard USA configuration would likely be an added cost
Look at all the other FMS supplied platforms, C-17, F-35, Supers, Growlers, Romeos .... All those are in the colours of the US service that supplied them.
|
|
|
Post by Calum on Jun 1, 2023 15:18:45 GMT 12
The footage I shot at the same time I photographed the above pic's, pretty sure some time in the early 90's, would be most grateful if some one had a stab at to what year this may have been? Thank you....... Photos are post 1991as these are Kahu jets. Assume they are from 2 sqn who arrived late Feb 1991
|
|
|
Post by Calum on May 18, 2023 15:13:58 GMT 12
I hear from good sources we will be leasing some Wildcats before the year is out as the Seasprites apparently can't be safely maintained in service beyond the end of this year (no OEM support). Who would be providing these "leased" helicopters? As has already been mentioned above there are only a small existing pool of airframes. The AW159 also cannot carry the Mk.46/54 torpedoes or Penguin ASM which raises further questions as integrating thses existing weapon for a small fleet would not be economic. The OEM? Especially if they was the possibility of a purchase later on The Wildcat can carry Sea Venom missiles and Stingray torpedo's..I doubt it could carry the penguin . And integrating that and the Mk 54 Torpedo would be madness when the Wildcat already has comparable weapons. Clearly what vessels the replacement helicopter is operate off, along with what is available quickly and of course cost are the drivers. The required timeframe is clearly why the Wildcat lease is an option. They wait for a Romeo is 3 plus years (if the RAN's experience is anything to go by) having working on an Airbus product in the past I'd not touch the 2 Airbus products with a bargepole.
|
|
|
Post by Calum on May 18, 2023 15:08:58 GMT 12
The Panther is pretty old based on the ancient Dalphin The H160M will be fielded by the French Military but IIRC not in a naval role I think there are some concerns over the amount of Chinese content (IIRC it was concern when it was bid as the RAF's Puma replacement ) MH-60S hasn't been in production for ages. The Aussies have had to buy more Romeos to replace the MRH 90 when the Serria would have been better, Why better? With 36 MH-60Rs they have enough airframes to cover all operational needs, along with training aircraft. Yes, in theory additional MH-60Rs were bought as a "replacement" for the no longer wanted MRH90 transport helicopters, but I suspect the Navy had no issues with purchasing a far more capable aircraft. The 12 additional aircraft for 808 Sqn were bought to replace the MRH-90 in the utility role as opposed to the ASW/ASuW role which is what the Romeo's of 816 do. From what I hear the 808 sqn aircraft will be operated as in hte utility role and will have some of the equipment removed so as to be able to carry a useful internal load of pax and stuff. Whether they actually operate all 12 is yet to be seen. From what I observe every day neither 816/725 Sqn do now. The cabin of the Romeo, is smaller than the MH-60S. I suspect, if they could have purchased the Serria for the 12 new machines rather than the Romeo they would have.
|
|
|
Post by Calum on May 17, 2023 15:01:51 GMT 12
I've heard that the Seasprites might not make it to their out of service date and that there could be a possibly interim solution needed sooner rather than later. This would require something able to operate from the existing OPVs, not some notional future replacement. There are not a lot of choices for suitable maritime helicopters, but these are the contenders as I see them, ranked from smallest to largest: Airbus AS565mbe Panther Leonardo AW159 Wildcat Airbus H160M Guepard Lockheed MH-60S Seahawk The H160M is pretty new and very close in weights and dimensions to the Seasprite. JT The Panther is pretty old based on the ancient Dalphin The H160M will be fielded by the French Military but IIRC not in a naval role I think there are some concerns over the amount of Chinese content (IIRC it was concern when it was bid as the RAF's Puma replacement ) MH-60S hasn't been in production for ages. The Aussies have had to buy more Romeos to replace the MRH 90 when the Serria would have been better, The only sensible one this list is the Wildcat. The Romeo is a fine machine but horrendously expensive to operate (like most helicopters).
|
|
|
Post by Calum on May 17, 2023 14:52:53 GMT 12
Excellent. I'd also be interested in the Custom decals albeit in 72 scale
|
|
|
Post by Calum on May 10, 2023 15:12:57 GMT 12
Here you go Dave and Shorty (tongue only slightly in cheek) ITAS = Integrated Tactical Avionics System AAW = Air to Air warfare SAM = Surface to Air Missile OPV = offshore Patrol vessel (Sometimes called OPC offshore patrol combatant) ANZAC = in this case it refers to the class of ships. Surely I don't need to explain it's original meaning RAN = Royal Australian Navy ESSM = Evolved SeaSparrow Missile USN = United States Navy AGM = Air to ground Missile HMNZS = (now) His Majesty's New Zealand Ship ASuW = Anti Surface Warfare ASW = Anti Submarine warfare RAST = Recovery Assist, Secure and Traverse MOTS= Military of the shelf FLIR = Forward Looking Infrared NVG = Night Vision Googles USD =United States Dollars CONOPS = Concept of Operations RNZAF = Royal New Zealand Air Force If I've missed any sing out
|
|