mroz
Flying Officer
Posts: 56
|
Post by mroz on Jan 5, 2023 23:01:29 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by vultee43 on Jan 6, 2023 19:35:53 GMT 12
The most sensible purchase the ADF has made in decades after so many White Elephants.
|
|
|
|
Post by delticman on Jan 7, 2023 16:07:35 GMT 12
The most sensible purchase the ADF has made in decades after so many White Elephants. Sounds a great idea but one might expect the operations people will require changes. It could be room for extra crew members down to a different size of tyres which might mean different wheels and different final drives! |
|
|
|
Post by Antonio on Jan 7, 2023 18:16:23 GMT 12
Ahhh. Just build them straight from the box and supply your own markings & decals  |
|
|
|
Post by vultee43 on Jan 8, 2023 11:41:50 GMT 12
The most sensible purchase the ADF has made in decades after so many White Elephants. Sounds a great idea but one might expect the operations people will require changes. It could be room for extra crew members down to a different size of tyres which might mean different wheels and different final drives! The ADF will find a way to make it more expensive, not fit for deployment or obsolete by the time it gets to deployment. We are allies of the U.S. and therefore tinker with things that are perfectly fine, until we break them. |
|
|
|
Post by richard1098 on Jan 8, 2023 13:34:53 GMT 12
To be fair, though, pretty much everything the ADF has bought from the US via FMS has been a trouble free purchase: AEGIS CMS, ESSM, SM-2, Mk48, M1A1, F-35, Super Hornets, Growlers, C-17. Even the C-27 is flying the types of missions it was always going to spend 99.99% of its flight time on (if things heat up, there will be a quick resolution of the remaining issues).
Programs that haven't worked out as intended seem to be due to either buying a small custom built fleet that is pushing the limits of technology, or buying into European initiatives that are run as industry rather than military capability programs. In the case of the Tigre, it was a program where the two development partners backed off, and one (Germany) pretty much abandoned, after the ADF had signed up.
Its a pity the US doesn't have competitive IFV and 155mm SPG programs underway.
|
|
|
|
Post by Calum on Jan 10, 2023 13:59:23 GMT 12
Even the C-27 is flying the types of missions it was always going to spend 99.99% of its flight time on (if things heat up, there will be a quick resolution of the remaining issues). They should have bought a civil aircraft to fly those C-27 missions then...... Would have saved lots of pain. It's not been a great purchase from what I hear. |
|
|
|
Post by Calum on Jan 10, 2023 14:01:19 GMT 12
Sounds a great idea but one might expect the operations people will require changes. It could be room for extra crew members down to a different size of tyres which might mean different wheels and different final drives! The ADF will find a way to make it more expensive, not fit for deployment or obsolete by the time it gets to deployment. We are allies of the U.S. and therefore tinker with things that are perfectly fine, until we break them. Already done by requiring use of the CEA radar |
|
|
|
Post by richard1098 on Jan 10, 2023 18:35:04 GMT 12
Even the C-27 is flying the types of missions it was always going to spend 99.99% of its flight time on (if things heat up, there will be a quick resolution of the remaining issues). They should have bought a civil aircraft to fly those C-27 missions then...... Would have saved lots of pain. It's not been a great purchase from what I hear. But what civil aircraft has the payload /range of of the C-27J with a rear cargo ramp for bulky items and vehicles, can airdrop cargo and paratroops, has rough field capability, and offers key system commonality with the C-130 for reduced operating costs? |
|
|
|
Post by Calum on Jan 11, 2023 13:59:28 GMT 12
They should have bought a civil aircraft to fly those C-27 missions then...... Would have saved lots of pain. It's not been a great purchase from what I hear. But what civil aircraft has the payload /range of of the C-27J with a rear cargo ramp for bulky items and vehicles, can airdrop cargo and paratroops, has rough field capability, and offers key system commonality with the C-130 for reduced operating costs? Where is airdropping of vehicles and paratroops part of the civil aid to the community that is suppsoedily 99% of what they bought the C-27J for (which it isn't) All the things you mention are it's military role which is what it would struggles to do in a non permissive environment has it even reached FOC yet? last I heard there still a number of airworthiness issues that either couldn't or hadn't be resolved. lets not pretend it's been a stellar purchase.. It's probably the worst platform the RAAF has bought in ages from an airworthiness / introduction to service perspective. (OK Wedgetail nd KC-30 had major issues but they appear to have worked out) That they are replacing C-27J with C-130J's in the next decade tells the real story. |
|
|
|
Post by richard1098 on Jan 11, 2023 18:54:36 GMT 12
But what civil aircraft has the payload /range of of the C-27J with a rear cargo ramp for bulky items and vehicles, can airdrop cargo and paratroops, has rough field capability, and offers key system commonality with the C-130 for reduced operating costs? Where is airdropping of vehicles and paratroops part of the civil aid to the community that is suppsoedily 99% of what they bought the C-27J for (which it isn't) All the things you mention are it's military role which is what it would struggles to do in a non permissive environment has it even reached FOC yet? last I heard there still a number of airworthiness issues that either couldn't or hadn't be resolved. lets not pretend it's been a stellar purchase.. It's probably the worst platform the RAAF has bought in ages from an airworthiness / introduction to service perspective. (OK Wedgetail nd KC-30 had major issues but they appear to have worked out) That they are replacing C-27J with C-130J's in the next decade tells the real story. How many western air forces would fly transport aircraft into non permissive environments, and how would a C-130J fare against a battery of S-300? Into environments where there may be a small number of MANPADS in use, possibly in critical situations. As I alluded to, if the region became "hot" quickly, resources would be found to address issues with the C-27J’s infra-red countermeasures (IRCM) system. The C-27J is not limited to civil assistance: australianaviation.com.au/2022/11/raaf-f-35s-and-spartans-to-train-with-malaysian-air-force/ |
|
|
|
Post by mcmaster on Jan 11, 2023 19:42:24 GMT 12
The ADF will find a way to make it more expensive, not fit for deployment or obsolete by the time it gets to deployment. We are allies of the U.S. and therefore tinker with things that are perfectly fine, until we break them. Already done by requiring use of the CEA radar Indeed CEA and CEAFAR will be interesting and fingers crossed goes well in the Hunter Class. I’m assuming it’s doing OK with the upgraded Anzacs. Balance here is its good to have local industry in this space but needs to do the job. Not sure if there have been any other buyers? |
|
|
|
Post by richard1098 on Jan 11, 2023 20:15:50 GMT 12
Already done by requiring use of the CEA radar Indeed CEA and CEAFAR will be interesting and fingers crossed goes well in the Hunter Class. I’m assuming it’s doing OK with the upgraded Anzacs. Balance here is its good to have local industry in this space but needs to do the job. Not sure if there have been any other buyers? The upgraded ANZACs with CEAFAR seem to have performed well in test: www.australiandefence.com.au/news/sustainment-asmd-an-outstanding-success-adm-october-2014Teamed with the more capable AEGIS CMS the Hunter class should be pretty effective. If anything, the current CEAFAR set up is probably deemed overly capable (and expensive) by most navies. The Hunters, like the current ANZACs, will have 6 short range and 6 long range arrays plus CEAMOUNT illumination arrays. The UK type 26 makes do with a single rotating array, while the Canadian CSC will have 4 arrays for its AN/SPY-7(V)1. |
|
|
|
Post by Calum on Jan 16, 2023 13:52:09 GMT 12
Where is airdropping of vehicles and paratroops part of the civil aid to the community that is suppsoedily 99% of what they bought the C-27J for (which it isn't) All the things you mention are it's military role which is what it would struggles to do in a non permissive environment has it even reached FOC yet? last I heard there still a number of airworthiness issues that either couldn't or hadn't be resolved. lets not pretend it's been a stellar purchase.. It's probably the worst platform the RAAF has bought in ages from an airworthiness / introduction to service perspective. (OK Wedgetail nd KC-30 had major issues but they appear to have worked out) That they are replacing C-27J with C-130J's in the next decade tells the real story. How many western air forces would fly transport aircraft into non permissive environments, and how would a C-130J fare against a battery of S-300? Into environments where there may be a small number of MANPADS in use, possibly in critical situations. As I alluded to, if the region became "hot" quickly, resources would be found to address issues with the C-27J’s infra-red countermeasures (IRCM) system. The C-27J is not limited to civil assistance: australianaviation.com.au/2022/11/raaf-f-35s-and-spartans-to-train-with-malaysian-air-force/But has it reached FOC yet (how long have they had it)? Have the underlying airworthiness issues been resolved or are they going to accept the risk and move (It should be later) You're the one who suggested C-27 is flying the types of missions it was always going to spend 99.99% of its flight time on. My point as many of those missions are civil aid to the community tasks, and could have been done by contracted civil aircraft of similar capability as they aren't core 'warfighting" roles. |
|
|
|
Post by Calum on Jan 16, 2023 13:55:39 GMT 12
Indeed CEA and CEAFAR will be interesting and fingers crossed goes well in the Hunter Class. I’m assuming it’s doing OK with the upgraded Anzacs. Balance here is its good to have local industry in this space but needs to do the job. Not sure if there have been any other buyers? The upgraded ANZACs with CEAFAR seem to have performed well in test: www.australiandefence.com.au/news/sustainment-asmd-an-outstanding-success-adm-october-2014Teamed with the more capable AEGIS CMS the Hunter class should be pretty effective. If anything, the current CEAFAR set up is probably deemed overly capable (and expensive) by most navies. The Hunters, like the current ANZACs, will have 6 short range and 6 long range arrays plus CEAMOUNT illumination arrays. The UK type 26 makes do with a single rotating array, while the Canadian CSC will have 4 arrays for its AN/SPY-7(V)1. CEAFAR is an excellent radar (designed and built here as well) but that's not the point. The point was it's specification complicates an already already time consuming process. Same with Type 26 specifying AEGIS and CEFAR... is it really a Type 26 now? How much time does the integrations of these Australian requirements add to the build? As for the ANZAC how top heavy do they look with CEAFAR on them... They look they will roll over in a storm  |
|
|
|
Post by richard1098 on Jan 16, 2023 19:45:46 GMT 12
How many western air forces would fly transport aircraft into non permissive environments, and how would a C-130J fare against a battery of S-300? Into environments where there may be a small number of MANPADS in use, possibly in critical situations. As I alluded to, if the region became "hot" quickly, resources would be found to address issues with the C-27J’s infra-red countermeasures (IRCM) system. The C-27J is not limited to civil assistance: australianaviation.com.au/2022/11/raaf-f-35s-and-spartans-to-train-with-malaysian-air-force/But has it reached FOC yet (how long have they had it)? Have the underlying airworthiness issues been resolved or are they going to accept the risk and move (It should be later) You're the one who suggested C-27 is flying the types of missions it was always going to spend 99.99% of its flight time on. My point as many of those missions are civil aid to the community tasks, and could have been done by contracted civil aircraft of similar capability as they aren't core 'warfighting" roles. The "safety" upgrade is primarily the replacement of radios. No big issue. Similarly, FOC is due to the IRCM system issues. All the RAAF's transport aircraft spend a lot of time on civil assistance roles, as do the army's CH-47s. Right now its the floods in northern WA, last year it was flooding in NSW, prior to that it was the east coast bushfires. Recently a C-17 supported the Australian Antarctic Division by airdropping supplies: australianaviation.com.au/2023/01/in-pictures-globemaster-airdrops-in-antarctica/ www.defence.gov.au/news-events/news/2023-01-09/airdrop-system-assists-antarctic-scientists |
|
|
|
Post by richard1098 on Jan 16, 2023 19:56:05 GMT 12
The upgraded ANZACs with CEAFAR seem to have performed well in test: www.australiandefence.com.au/news/sustainment-asmd-an-outstanding-success-adm-october-2014Teamed with the more capable AEGIS CMS the Hunter class should be pretty effective. If anything, the current CEAFAR set up is probably deemed overly capable (and expensive) by most navies. The Hunters, like the current ANZACs, will have 6 short range and 6 long range arrays plus CEAMOUNT illumination arrays. The UK type 26 makes do with a single rotating array, while the Canadian CSC will have 4 arrays for its AN/SPY-7(V)1. CEAFAR is an excellent radar (designed and built here as well) but that's not the point. The point was it's specification complicates an already already time consuming process. Same with Type 26 specifying AEGIS and CEFAR... is it really a Type 26 now? How much time does the integrations of these Australian requirements add to the build? As for the ANZAC how top heavy do they look with CEAFAR on them... They look they will roll over in a storm The RAN never wanted the "Type 26," it was just the best hull to leverage off to build the full spectrum warship they wanted. Luckily the Brits decided to adopt the Mk 41 VLS and Mk45 Mod 4 gun, making things a lot easier. A single role ship like the Type 26 (yes, it does have point air defence in addition to ASW) doesn't make a lot of sense given the expanse of the RAN's area of interest. The Brits will effectively need to use two ships, a Type 45 and a Type 26, to deliver the capabilities of a single Hunter or Canadian CSC. |
|
|
|
Post by mcmaster on Jan 16, 2023 19:56:45 GMT 12
I recall the RAN ANZACS being the brunt of jokes re being equipped “for but not with” now I think they pack a decent punch for their size. Seakeeeping doesn’t seem to have hindered them as they’ve been all over the Indian and Pacific oceans.
|
|
|
|
Post by Calum on Jan 17, 2023 13:57:17 GMT 12
But has it reached FOC yet (how long have they had it)? Have the underlying airworthiness issues been resolved or are they going to accept the risk and move (It should be later) You're the one who suggested C-27 is flying the types of missions it was always going to spend 99.99% of its flight time on. My point as many of those missions are civil aid to the community tasks, and could have been done by contracted civil aircraft of similar capability as they aren't core 'warfighting" roles. The "safety" upgrade is primarily the replacement of radios. No big issue. Similarly, FOC is due to the IRCM system issues. All the RAAF's transport aircraft spend a lot of time on civil assistance roles, as do the army's CH-47s. Right now its the floods in northern WA, last year it was flooding in NSW, prior to that it was the east coast bushfires. Recently a C-17 supported the Australian Antarctic Division by airdropping supplies: australianaviation.com.au/2023/01/in-pictures-globemaster-airdrops-in-antarctica/ www.defence.gov.au/news-events/news/2023-01-09/airdrop-system-assists-antarctic-scientistsI assume they have accepted the airworthiness issues with seating etc Well aware that ADF spend a lot time on Civil aid to the community. But the point remains the C-27J hasn't been a rollicking success. The RAAF have done a great job keeping it's issues under the radar and I will slip quietly into retirement in the next decade. This is ome time that buying an FMS platform hasn't worked out. That it's not truly a US platform and that it's not really used in any great numbers by the US hasn't helped. |
|
|
|
Post by Calum on Jan 17, 2023 13:58:11 GMT 12
CEAFAR is an excellent radar (designed and built here as well) but that's not the point. The point was it's specification complicates an already already time consuming process. Same with Type 26 specifying AEGIS and CEFAR... is it really a Type 26 now? How much time does the integrations of these Australian requirements add to the build? As for the ANZAC how top heavy do they look with CEAFAR on them... They look they will roll over in a storm The RAN never wanted the "Type 26," it was just the best hull to leverage off to build the full spectrum warship they wanted. Luckily the Brits decided to adopt the Mk 41 VLS and Mk45 Mod 4 gun, making things a lot easier. Better than the Hobart class? (Serious Question, I don't know) |
|
