As I thought I understood it. The Hornets require hose drogue, the F-111s boom, the Hercs are partially plumbed for boom (??). The Chooks ?
Existing RAAF 707 AAR are drogue equipped only, ie Hornet only. If the Pigs are going in 2010ish is there still a need for boom refueling?
rb
Yep, JSF uses booms!
The Chinooks are not currently air refuellable, however if plans to upgrade them to CH-47F standard come to fruiting, they will be, although not from an A330! The C-130Js are plumbed for but not equipped with receptacles for AAR.
Cheers
Magoo
Tankers for helicopters!
Does anyone know what is the current thinking in the RAAF regarding some of the transport aircraft to be replaced or upgraded under Air 8000 in the Defence Capability Plan, being fitted as tankers? IMO, 4- 6 so equipped would provide a huge boost to the capability of Australia's helicopter units.
Cheers
PS: I just read Magoo's comments about the Chinooks needing to be upgraded to enable this. What is the situation with the NH90s?
Does anyone know what is the current thinking in the RAAF regarding some of the transport aircraft to be replaced or upgraded under Air 8000 in the Defence Capability Plan, being fitted as tankers? IMO, 4- 6 so equipped would provide a huge boost to the capability of Australia's helicopter units.
Cheers
PS: I just read Magoo's comments about the Chinooks needing to be upgraded to enable this. What is the situation with the NH90s?
Last edited:
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
As I understand it (if any one knows better, please correct me) but boom refuelers can have an attachment to allow drogue refueling, while aircraft dedicated to drogue refueling aren't able to also engage in boom refueling. IIRC that ended up causing a problem for the USAF at one point in the gulf, because there were refuelers for USN aircraft (mainly drogue) that were unable to AAR USAF warplanes.
Onto a slightly touchy subject re: RAAF AAR requirements. I was reading the Air Power Australia piece by Dr. Kopp & Mr. Cooper, http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2005-02.pdf
and there was mention of the Aerial Refueling Gap where the following statement was made...
What I was wonder, is what the "conventional metrics" being referred to are?Doing rough (very rough) calculations, it seems that the point being advocated is that Australia should maintain the same or greater scale of AAR capacity as the US does per aircraft. I'm interested in finding out what determines the required AAR capacity for the RAAF.
-Cheers
Probably worth either starting a new thread or digging up the one we were on about six months ago for this, but there's no new news since that time.
The MRH90s will also be plumbed for AAR but will likely not be fitted, initially at least, with the probe unless we get some C-130 tankers as well.Tasman said:
Cheers
Magoo
The metrics allow for X number of aircraft to be down at any one time. For the USAF which has 500+ tankers in its inventory (40-odd of which, KC-135Es, are currently grounded due to fatigue issues), they can afford to lose a few aircraft to maintenance issues without overly affecting their AAR capacity. However, fo an air force which has five tankers, one of which will likely be in some stage of regular maintenance, if you lose another one to a maintenance issue, you're suddenly down 40 per cent of your total AAR capacity!
I'm not sure about the 20-odd numbers Carlo talks about but, despite five A330s effectively having four to six times the capability of four 707s, the RAAF could certainly use a few more tankers in order to maintain a proper operational capability.
Cheers
Magoo
Don't have time ATM to find and digest that part but
I found the following (where he seems to indicate a more modest 8-12)
http://www.ausairpower.net/TE-AAR-Perspective-90.html
".... From the global perspective the RAAF's tanker force is modest in size and capability, but it is beyond any doubt a significant step in the right direction. With the currently benign regional environment and financially restrained mood in Canberra it will be difficult for the RAAF to make a strong case for a full size operational force of 8-12 boom, pod and fuel cell equipped tankers, however the increasing tendency toward instability throughout the Pacific and the growing power projection capability of India in the region could see changes further down the track...."
chronologically this article is older (1990 - although apparently updated 2005)
rb
If all our missions require the use of tankers then that is sending a strong message that the aircraft we are using do not have enough range.
If every strike mission requires tankers and every escort aircraft requires tankers, then the entire airforce is limited by the amount of tankers available. Thats a very bad thing.
Say 5 tankers will be able to perform a big strike mission, but could not sustain multiple missions around the clock.
1 of the 5 tankers will most likely be unavailable.
1 tanker will be dedicated for keeping the wedgetails in the air.
1 tanker will be used to keep a combat air patrol in the air.
That leaves 2 tankers to perform offensive strikes.
So a 5 tanker fleet will allow us to send 10 aircraft to strike indonesia, with probably a single strike per day. Thats pretty much rehashing what Carlo Kopp analyse worked out, far from ideal.
I can easily see the need for 10 tankers in a war time situation, any more would not be cost effective.
Though buying aircraft that dont require tankers would be by far the best option. This is very hard though consider Australia is extremely large and potential targets are over 1000 miles away.
If every strike mission requires tankers and every escort aircraft requires tankers, then the entire airforce is limited by the amount of tankers available. Thats a very bad thing.
Say 5 tankers will be able to perform a big strike mission, but could not sustain multiple missions around the clock.
1 of the 5 tankers will most likely be unavailable.
1 tanker will be dedicated for keeping the wedgetails in the air.
1 tanker will be used to keep a combat air patrol in the air.
That leaves 2 tankers to perform offensive strikes.
So a 5 tanker fleet will allow us to send 10 aircraft to strike indonesia, with probably a single strike per day. Thats pretty much rehashing what Carlo Kopp analyse worked out, far from ideal.
I can easily see the need for 10 tankers in a war time situation, any more would not be cost effective.
Though buying aircraft that dont require tankers would be by far the best option. This is very hard though consider Australia is extremely large and potential targets are over 1000 miles away.
Or A400M & some tanker kits . . . . .
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #71
There is no strike aircraft we can buy that don't require refuellers. Even B-2's are refuelled.
The Super Hornet with the JASSM-ER (likely to be acquired under phase 2 of the FoSoW project) will allow us to effectively strike to ranges of roughly 2000k's. This should be enough to "hit Jakarta" or whatever Indonesian target we need to hit (if any).
I'd like to see "buddy" refuelling kits acquired along with the Super Hornet purchase, it'd go a long way to "picking up the slack" that only 5x KC-30's will provide.
As to Phreeky's question. Kopp is probably the most prolific defence "journalist" in Australia. I've even seen his articles appear in Air International and Air Forces Monthly from time to time.
Anyone who makes public comment on something ought to be prepared to have your opinion challenged. Particularly when a LARGE part of his work seems to consist of criticising the work of others.
If you think that is obsessive, well maybe you should stop commenting publicly. I would not even attempt to stop Dr Kopp coming here and criticising my opinions... As to why I brought it up. It was relevent to the tanker issue we are discussing...
If the targets is within range of internal fuel then the B-2's and B-1b would be refueled.
Completely different mission require. A B-2 or B-1b used for inter-continental strike will require inflight refueling. However the same aircraft providing region bombing would not require inflight refueling at all.
Indonesia, Malaysia, PNG, Fiji etc can all be reached on internal fuel.
To strike indonesia say 20 Super Hornets with 4 tankers + wedgetail would be required. With 3/4 of the Hornets set up for strike. As this would use up most of the assets we would be able to perform one strike per day.
If even a single b-1b is used it can replace ALL the strike hornets, and reducing the number of escort hornets by half. So 1 b-1b, 3 Super hornets, 1 tanker and 1 wedgetail.
So a reduction from 25 aircraft to only 6 aircraft. If only 4-5 B-1b's were purchased we would have enough aircraft to sustain multiple strikes around the clock, with no aircraft aircraft.
We'd need over 200 Super Hornets and 20 tankers to sustain the same offensive force as 5 B-1b, 70 Super Hornets and 5 tankers.
Yes the B-1b would cost HEAPS to operate but the siginificantly reduced pressure on tankers and the fighter fleet would easily make up for the cost.
Buddy refueling? thats a joke, you then need twice as many hornets. Now over 40 aircraft are required to perform the same as 6 aircraft..
This was the idea behind Carlo Kopp's evolved F-111. It would reduce the tanking required and he clearly showed the advnatages of less tanking. It boosted nearly every other area once the strike force didn't need tanking.
The B-1b is a big F-111, it allows 4 F-111's worth of weapons to be dropped twice as far away. This isn't the main reason why i believe the B-1b is better than the evolved F-111. The main reason is the reduced risk, all upgrades are available off the shelf and perfectly flyable mothballed airframes are available. The US has already made B-1b's operational that were mothballed. Very little risk with this option.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Ah, okay. It struck me as, odd... That someone would advocate having as much AAR capacity per aircraft as the US, given that few air forces conduct as many farflung operations as the USAF, as regularly. I will say though, that I would like to see the RAAF get a dozen or so KC-130Js perhaps to replace the existing C-130Hs. That would provide a nice boost to AAR operations, as well as allowing AAR for helicopters.
-Cheers
I would have thought that even a B-1B might require a top up of fuel after takeoff if it is carrying a maximum weapons load.
This starts to look like the RAF Vulcan strike on the Stanley airfield in the Falklands War. How much damage do you expect a single bomber to cause, even a B-1B? Which would be easier to intercept, a single B-1B or 15 Super Hornets (or JSFs)?
If this is such a good option, how come no one in the RAAF has put the idea forward as an option?
If it’s a joke why is it used by a force with huge resources like the USN?
I obviously misread what APA was advocating! I thought Carlo Kopp wanted a huge increase in the number of tankers to go with evolved F111s.
You have raised the B-1B option in other threads. Where is the evidence that they would be available to the RAAF? Surely the USAF would want the mothballed aircraft to keep its operational force up to strength.
Cheers
Last edited:
abramsteve
New Member
I agree with where you are coming from, however I beleive that doing this has caused a great deal problems. It also seems to be a sore spot with some in the USN...
Another way this could be looked at is that its only a good option when a huge amount of resources are available (eg the USN)
I like the idea, however I believe thats all it may ever be. Sure is a nice dream though
Will the 707 fleet be completely retired when the A330,s are operational? How much life is left in them?
Depends on how far it's going.
But there's your answer - build Vulcans! I'm sure BAe wouldn't object, & would be happy to provide copies of any surviving documentation. Modern engines (must be some whcih could be made to fit - & would be more economical, hence longer range) & avionics - aaaahhh, Avro!
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #79
Why would a B-2 or B-1B be refueled if a target is WITHIN range of one of these aircraft on "internal fuel"?
I think you might need to go back and read the White Paper RJM and find out exactly what Governments expects RAAF to provide in relation to it's strike capacity.
Suffice to say, intercontinental and "strategic" bombing capability are NOT outcomes RAAF are required to provide.
The SH as I said with JASSM-ER (which WILL be acquired) can strike to a range of around 2000k's WITHOUT refuelling. This is more than far enough to meet Governments requirement and is very similar to what an unrefuelled F-111 can achieve, IIRC.
The buddy refuelling system carried by the SH is NOT a joke. Do some maths about just how much fuel an SH carrying 5x external drop tanks can carry. Suffice to say it's sufficient to allow the USN to operate NO other tanker aircraft...
Why would 20 strikers be required to strike Indonesia? What is the mission. What is the conflict about? The Super Hornet is going to be used as a "gap filler". It is NOT going to be the sole striker, just as F-111 is not now...
Once again there is no requirement for RAAF to perform a strategic or intercontintental (I presume you mean in the US/RUSSIA/CHINA context as Australian launched strike missions on Indonesia technically ARE "intercontinental) strikes. Talk of a B-1B is about as useful as suggesting a Tiger Moth should form the basis of RAAF's NACC...
The 707s will be retired when the A330s are operational. Apart from age I believe there is a problem with polution from their engines which is outside current acceptable standards.
Cheers