|
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 Mustang51 on Aug 7, 2023 14:47:42 GMT 12
Change wont happen to the first lot that, I am guessing, are being 'prioritised'. Any change to the paint will happen later to the first machines and guessing that the later ones will come in a different scheme. I have been wrong before, but I'll bet there is a change
|
|
|
Post by snafu on Aug 7, 2023 18:29:42 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
|
|
|
Post by Mustang51 on Aug 7, 2023 21:21:38 GMT 12
Na Na Na Na Naaaaa
|
|
|
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 snafu on Aug 8, 2023 17:01:18 GMT 12
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. 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 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.
|
|
|
Post by 11SQNLDR on Aug 9, 2023 16:20:49 GMT 12
I'm not getting hung up over a paint job - my ADF source is confident they're staying in US Army Helo Drab FS 34031, just like the Chooks have stayed in Woodland Desert Sage FS 34201. The main thing is they're on the way and the pain of the Taipan can be eventually put to bed
|
|
|
Post by falcon124 on Aug 10, 2023 9:28:17 GMT 12
Once you go off pure FMS, the paperwork pain becomes a nightmare and the management of the various vendors (if all parts not supplied through the OEM) is a nightmare (who can see what, who can touch what, ADF moving parts between two vendors 'cos they can't be in the same place at the same time, etc etc).
|
|
|
Post by falcon124 on Aug 10, 2023 9:33:35 GMT 12
As to the current environment within the ADF, it's clear that "In Defence, no-one got fired for buying American!"
It's going to be interesting to see what happens with the Apaches on our LHDs when they're not designed for ocean operations and don't have folding rotors...
I'm looking at our current situation and mapping it back to 1930 when Australia was buying British and Wackett was practically crucified for buying from the USA. I wonder if purchasing minds will shift to Korea and the likes if the USA decides to service its own needs before anyone else?
|
|
|
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 Dave Homewood on Aug 10, 2023 19:57:45 GMT 12
Can I just ask... what does FMS stand for?
|
|
|
Post by Antonio on Aug 10, 2023 20:22:23 GMT 12
Can I just ask... what does FMS stand for? Foreign Military Sales
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Aug 10, 2023 20:23:03 GMT 12
Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by 30sqnatc on Aug 11, 2023 18:36:13 GMT 12
Can I just ask... what does FMS stand for? Foreign Military Sales A US DoD system designed to keep lots of Federal civil servants in a job and give customers very few rights. And heaven help you if you do a mx of FMS and direct commercial sales from the OEM.
|
|
|
Post by richard1098 on Aug 11, 2023 19:05:28 GMT 12
How much does visible spectrum camouflage really matter in 2023 if you're up against a peer adversary?
|
|
|
Post by richard1098 on Aug 11, 2023 19:15:17 GMT 12
I remain to be convinced they will not be Australia's biggest defence white elephant. Along with the Spartans, Taiwan's and numerous Army and Navy projects, we seem to be purchasing based on romantic notions, not practical solutions. On paper Taipans are the better utility helicopters for the ADF but the reality is they have fundamental flaws which all aircraft have to some degree or another. In this case it’s cost per flight hours and sustainment, it’s really the one area that the Europeans do not do well as they just do not have the same numbers that the Americans have.Spartans were a replace for Caribou which in the current context it too would not meet the requirements of the RAAF, from what I understand it’s the EW self protection suite that is letting down the Spartan for what ever reason. People forget that the Spartans are just a smaller version of the C130 it use the same cockpit architecture the same 6 blade Rolls Royce engines of the C130J,so it cannot be sustainment in those areas otherwise we would be having problems with the Hercules's fleet The Spartans came with a comprehensive self protection suite so I am puzzled why the RAAF have done it 12 Electronic Warfare Self Protection Suites; 12 AAR-47A(V)2 Missile Warning Systems; 12 ALE-47(V) Threat Adaptive Countermeasures Dispensing Systems; 12 APR-39B(V)2 Radar Warning Receivers; 13 AN/APN-241 Radar Systems; 44 AN/ARC-210 Warrior Very High Frequency/Ultra High Frequency Communication Systems; 12 KY-100 Units; 12 HF 9550 Radios; 12 APX-119 Identification Friend or Foe (Mode 4); 14 Blue Force Trackers; www.dsca.mil/press-media/major-arms-sales/australia-c-27j-aircraft-and-related-supportCompared to the CH-47F The Government of Australia has requested to buy four (4) CH-47F cargo helicopters with customer-unique modifications; eight (8) T55-GA-714A aircraft turbine engines, five (5) AN/AAR-57 Common Missile Warning Systems (CMWS); eight (8) Embedded Global Positioning System (GPS)/Inertial Navigation Systems (INS/EGI) +429; and two (2) EAGLE+429 Embedded Global Positioning System (GPS)/Inertial Navigation Systems (INS/EGI). www.dsca.mil/press-media/major-arms-sales/australia-ch-47f-chinook-helicopters-0It could be that the C27J could not accept the same C130J Large Aircraft Infra-Red Counter-Measures under AIR 5416 Phase 4B2 and the RAAF are just not comfortable with putting the aircraft in that situation Spartans were bought in to sit between the CH-47F and C130J it has more options to where it can operate from its faster than CH-47F One major issue with multinational projects is that each participant country will find every way possible to maximise its share of development and production work. One of them is to make the components you are responsible for as complex, and hence costly, as is (reasonably?) possible.
|
|
|
Post by machina on Aug 11, 2023 19:19:23 GMT 12
How much does visible spectrum camouflage really matter in 2023 if you're up against a peer adversary? Looking the coolest assists in total victory.
|
|
|
Post by snafu on Aug 11, 2023 22:12:07 GMT 12
A US DoD system designed to keep lots of Federal civil servants in a job and give customers very few rights. And heaven help you if you do a mx of FMS and direct commercial sales from the OEM. irrespective if sales are via FMS or DCS each have to clear civil hurdles under ITAR and congress notifications. FMS & DCS are not in completion with each other, FMS will not release any data to client nations unless all direct negotiations cease due to the vast difference between negotiating under FMS & DCS. But the letter of request under FMS might only be for the actual equipment of pricing and availability then use DCS for the spare furnishings and so forth.
|
|
|
Post by lesterpk on Aug 11, 2023 23:21:54 GMT 12
Spartans were bought in to sit between the CH-47F and C130J it has more options to where it can operate from its faster than CH-47F Any bets on the ADF aquiring V-22 ospreys to fill that gap when the Spartans go? Fast, reasonable payload, land anywhere.
|
|
|
Post by snafu on Aug 12, 2023 0:16:28 GMT 12
Spartans were bought in to sit between the CH-47F and C130J it has more options to where it can operate from its faster than CH-47F Any bets on the ADF aquiring V-22 ospreys to fill that gap when the Spartans go? Fast, reasonable payload, land anywhere. Spartans replacement have just been ordered C130Jx20. No chance on V-22 We currently have 12 C130J & 10 C27J. I personally think the C27 still has a role to play in the RAAF. but I did read something the other day but cannot confirm it is correct to the reason why the C27J will not be used as a battlefield airlifter is that because the Sparten is a bit of a hybird with both Euro/US bits in it no one will support the integration of the self defence suite in it. which i think is a bit strange as the ADF jumped through the hoops to intergrate Hellfire onto tiger ARH. you would think that would be more complex than the self defence suite on Spartan Im betting on another order of CH-47F within 24 mths
|
|