Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Australia Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: What chance the Defence White Paper will retain 3 RAR in Airborne role?
Volkodav    9/27/2008 11:51:55 PM
It struck me that our special forces are currently being worked very hard and that a possible solution may be to bring 3RAR up to the same level of training as 4RAR while retaining an Airborne slant. 3RAR could then be brigaded with 4RAR forming a Commando, or Para/Commando Brigade with a number of support and training functions administered at brigade level. I then started to wonder if this may have come up in the White Paper deliberations. A second Commando type battalion would more useful than a third LI Btn, while there would also be cost and recruiting benefits to not relocating them to Townsville. I know the airborne thing has been done to death on previous posts but with HNA motorising and mechanising most of the land force and RAVEN's suggestion that Cav be reroled as "Fighting Cavalry" an additional "elite" Infantry formation may make more sense than an additional light motorised one.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13   NEXT
gf0012-aust       10/16/2008 12:02:04 AM

not even remotely interested in them for SF here.

 

I didn't specify that they would be a SF specific asset, more a general purpose 'bou replacement.

I was responding to Volk on the SF issue.  Not sure they're cost efficient even for general lift

logistics burden

 

More so than keeping a couple of 50 year old radial running? I'd be very surprised, unless their are plans to let your mate Goon re-engine the bou's ;-).

Bous won't get re-engined.  Chooks are replacing Bous

support burden

 

See answer for logistics burden.

See above

doctrine mismatch

 

They do the same thing as the Caribou except better in most respects. I don't see that the conditions that have made the Caribou so successful for Australia, i.e. the need for a type that can operate in hot and high conditions and from a short or better still no runway, has changed significantly over the last 50 years.
 
We're not looking for direct replacement - hence why Chooks are the preferred replacement atm





 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       10/16/2008 3:09:41 AM
More Chooks sounds good, especially with their hot and high performance advantage over single rotor types.
 
Any chance we would get 3 or 4 MH or CSAR variants, I did read something about MH's being considered last year?
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       10/16/2008 5:07:29 AM


Any chance we would get 3 or 4 MH or CSAR variants, I did read something about MH's being considered last year?


Nope and NAFAIK in real terms
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain    GF   10/16/2008 8:12:39 AM
I was responding to Volk on the SF issue.  Not sure they're cost efficient even for general lift
 
Probably not at the moment but at the US production run continues the unit price will drop.
Bous won't get re-engined.  Chooks are replacing Bous
 
The re-engining thing was a joke. I'm happy to hear that they are looking to buy more Chooks but IMHO we should be getting back up to the pre-90's numbers (i.e. 12) AND replacing the Bou's, be that with Chooks or something else. Somehow I doubt that will happen. Question though, are we looking at remanufactured Chooks or new builds, and how many?

We're not looking for direct replacement - hence why Chooks are the preferred replacement atm
 
Well we should be IMHO. Heavy lift helecopters are necessary asset in their own right but they aren't a perfect substitute for a light STOL fixed-wing transport, especially in terms of range.
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain    Raven   10/16/2008 8:25:16 AM
The V-22 might be useful sure, but at what cost. I'm sure if you worked out the cost per kg/km for all the difference possibilities for AIR8000 (C-130, C-27, Chinook, V-22) I'm sure the V-22 would be by far the most expensive. Add in the cost of a whole new aircraft type and it would be a very expensive proposition. What would you prefer - 12 new Chinooks or 4 V-22?
 
Like I said, it shouldn't be considered an either or proposition. Both have their place. After all if heavy lift helos were an adequate substitute for the V-22, why would the US be buying them?
There are never going to be regular rotary-wing resupply flights from Australia's mainland to anywhere - it's too expensive.

The V-22 isn't a rotary wing type for most of its flight and is more suitable for longer range flights.

For the very few such flights that a C-130 couldn't be used for a refuelled Chinook would be fine.
 
Don't forget then that you are going to have to factor in the cost of extra KC-130's (though I think we should have 4 of those anyway in support of the helo fleet). I'd also be interested to hear how many flights the bou's are flying right now that the C-130 can't. I was under the impression that they are used extensively, so you might find it more than "a very few". Also remember that using a C-130 for tasks that a light fixed-wing transport can do is going to be very expensive, just as using a refuelled Chinook would be. The high unit cost of the V-22 might well be offset by the savings on fuel.
 
Either way, V-22 certainly isn't a priority for Australia. There are far more important capability deficiencies to be addressed first.
 
Yeah I know. I didn't say it had to be done now, but we should consider it down the track.
 
Quote    Reply

Raven22       10/16/2008 11:10:38 AM
 
 
Like I said, it shouldn't be considered an either or proposition. Both have their place. After all if heavy lift helos were an adequate substitute for the V-22, why would the US be buying them?

The US is buying them because they have a $600 Billion defence budget - they have no need to compromise. Australia doesn't have that luxury. It is worth noting however that the US Army hasn't bought any - only the Air Force and Marines for some very specific requirements that Australia doesn't share.

The V-22 isn't a rotary wing type for most of its flight and is more suitable for longer range flights.

The cost of the V-22 is comparable to rotary-wing aircraft not fixed wing-aircraft though. It generally costs 3-10 times as much per tonne/km to move stuff by rotary compared to fixed wing remember.
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Lawman       10/17/2008 5:42:23 AM
It makes little sense to go for V-22s, the cost-vs-benefit calculations just wouldn't favour it. For similar costs, we could operate a proper number of Chinooks (12ish), as well as replace the 'bous with C-27Js. I would say that the Chinooks have a higher priority than the direct replacement of the Caribou, but there are always priorities, it doesn't mean we should hold back from pursuing replacements. C-27Js would also offer other possibilities, with the potential for fielding a sort of 'cheap' immitation of the American's specialist Hercules versions, e.g. EC-130s (Psy-ops and ELINT versions), AC-130s, and MC-130s. Even modest numbers of these specialist variants could prove very useful, especially for supporting special ops and commando ops.
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       10/17/2008 5:58:05 AM

  
It generally costs 3-10 times as much per tonne/km to move stuff by rotary compared to fixed wing remember.


The amount of budget that rotary chews up in ADF is frightening.  In fact, if you take out rotary running costs we could afford the F-22's in Carlo Kopp reconstructed airforce... :)
 
thank goodness for rotaries....
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       10/17/2008 6:00:09 AM

e.g. EC-130s (Psy-ops and ELINT versions)


currently better served by the Orion "specials".  better range, more efficient running costs and better "fixed" payload fitout...
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       10/17/2008 7:42:39 AM
The amount of budget that rotary chews up in ADF is frightening.  In fact, if you take out rotary running costs we could afford the F-22's in Carlo Kopp reconstructed airforce... :)
 
Army Aviation used to operate a substantial number of fixed wing aircraft, I believe they now only have a small number of leased Super King Airs and Twin Otters.  Would it be a feasible / flexible option to aquire a greater number of light utility aircraft to supplement our Helo force?
 
They wouldn't be suitable for all roles but could perform effectively and economically in many support roles.
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics