Australia's next generation of drones has been sent to Afghanistan before they have a runway to operate from.
The embarrassing oversight is expected to delay the full-scale operation of the army's new Shadow 200 robotic spy planes in Oruzgan province until the second quarter of next year.
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
Defence red-faced over drones
Also from Stewart at The Australian; (subscription) a good idea before deploying somewhere is to make sure there are facilities able to take the capability.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
I agree completely. It's an absolute disgrace that these UAV's (not sure what a "drone" is exactly, some sort of bee perhaps?) don't have a runway to operate from.
Personally I think we should blame the DMO for not buying defence a runway to operate these from...
The launch system these aircraft use and which DMO has bought, is clearly not up to the job...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHt4PD8IpUs&feature=youtube_gdata_player
What runway?? These things can take fly from any hard-surface highway.
The Dutch Uruzgan Task Force has operated approx 5 rented AeroStar UAV's for a couple of years from Tereen, the airfield near Tarin Kowt. They could not operate from the dirtstrip. So a 700 x 20 meter / 2,300 ft x 60ft paved runway was built by specially flown in Dutch engineers. This runway is suitable for Shadow 200 ops.
As the article states, the other kind of launch and recovery increases wear on the airframe.
Probably not a big deal since Australia always has enough airframes for attrition.
"Probably not a big deal since Australia always has enough airframes for attrition"
Very good.
So there exists a launch and recovery system not involving runways but the downside is that there is more wear of the aircraft?
We're at war, I think we can manage a little wear and tear for operational reasons.
Dear "wear and tear" The ADF has never heard of the terms ,attrition or wear and tear, or the possibility of something unexpected occurring.
Pretty sure they have when you look at Classic Hornet fatigue management and consideration of attrition jets in the 100 jet JSF buy.... (being single engine and all means some will be lost, it's inevitable).
I do not understand what you are saying?What management?
Perplexed - the ying to JackJacks yang.
Anon, the fatique mangement does not take into account any "surprises".
It merely provides training hours.
There is no plan for wear and tear or attrition above the ordinary, nor any Plan B.Nobody in Defence ever seems to have heard of attrition. Look at the pathetic handling of the Chinook fleet.
What do you do if a previously unknown structural problem arises?
Oh, that's right thats why Angus retired the F111, just in case.
Better start ordering more SH's now, or doing some real structural upgrades on the Hornet.
Who is jackjack?
And here is the proof.
http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/fadt_ctte/procurement/report/index.htm
Defence and DMO could not make sure the BBQ gas bottle was filled for Friday lunch, let alon manage anything. Regards
Go to Senate Enquiries, Procurement procedures for Defence Capital projects
Preliminary report
15 December 2011
No allowance for attrition huh? Hmm. I guess that's why Army has bought 18 air vehicles to support an operational requirement of 10 air vehicles for the 2 operational TUAV systems (5 air vehicles per system) + 2 air vehicles for training...
Or maybe someone who clearly can't be bothered doing his homework and confuses empty catchphrases with informed comment, simply doesn't care enough and is only interested and slandering all and sundry for his own purposes?
As to the Chinooks, you may have missed the replacement airframe order announced the other day, that has been in train since before the crash a few months ago, but by the end of January 2012 we'll have the biggest Chinook fleet we've had in more than 20 years...
Obviously not enough for you. Maybe they should have ordered 1000? Would that be enough for you?
Colonel Bonza, apologist.
I was not talking about the "drones" alone.
Read what people post.
Wow, 2 more Chinooks.
AFTER they lost one.
Anyone watching the experience of the British, Amaerican and Canadian fleets would have predicted losses.
DOD didn't.
Remember we started with 12.
I also note we retired the SeaKings without a replacement.
Suggest you read carefully
the Coles report and Senate Report indicated.It would appear that my previous observations are correct.
I needsay no more.It is totally self evident
Wrong, Government approved the expanded fleet and the request was sent before the Chinook crash.
You might also note the carefully worded statement on the matter. We are headed back to that larger fleet of Chinooks we previously maintained, but the resources, financial and human aren't available to do everything at once. It will expand over time, the final figure hasn't been approved yet but it will be at least 12 aircraft, possibly as high as 14.
The Seakings have been replaced without replacement? Hmm. Clearly you must have missed that whole MRH-90 thing... Navy's MRH-90's have already been delivered and are back flying again now.
They'll be stood up in 808 Squadron service soon enough, the whole debacle could have been avoided with the choice of Bushranger's MH-60S or MH-60R's minus all the ASW kit but Government desperately requires it's domestic assembly and painting programs apparently...
Colonel Bonza.
One word to you.
"Apologist"
When he MRH90 becomes operational let me know. Will not be for a while yet.
Please read the reports given in this thread, re Defence and DMO.Amazing how you do not comment on your beloved DMO? Could not fill the gas bottle for the Friday afternoon BBQ.
Regards
Essington Lewis must be turning in his grave by now.
Regards
Colonel Bonza , you tell fibbies about the Chinook D order.
Asked for, not approved and finally approved after the loss.Naughty.
Post a Comment