Interesting. Whilst I would prefer the Super Hornet over the Tornado any day, I did at one stage wonder why the Tornado wasnt chosen as a replacement for the F-111. I dont know about the range or payload differences?Occum said:
As wonderful as this sounds where do we expect the money to come from? No way is AU going to be able to fork over the extra billions for the F-22s. Add to that there really isn't an operational requirement for them. JSF will be more than a match for any threats she will face. AU acquiring F-22s is like using a diamond encrusted Rolex to tell you what time it is when your 9.99 K-mart brand does the samejob.:lol2abramsteve said:
I understand what your saying, and if purchasing F-22s would stretch the budget to the point where it was useless for anything else then I agree with you completely. I also know that there is little to no chance that we could afford them, but as Ive said before, why settle for less when you can have more?Big-E said:
She's a good aircraft that is comming to the end of her service life. I believe they have stopped exports if I'm not mistaken... I may be wrong but they might have to buy them used.abramsteve said:
Correct. Tornado production ended in the last millennium.Big-E said:
abramsteve said:
Agree completely, however even moreso than the fighter issue, RAAF is hamstrung by available funding when it comes to the number of MRTT's it operates.Occum said:True, but 5 tankers is really a training capability, not an operational capability. For medium size tankers like the MRTTs, the rule of thumb for this off load capability is one tanker for four fighters. If you work the numbers for the different scenarios, that's not a lot of aircraft in the air and the JSF is not being designed for Lone Ranger tasks with the norm being 4 shipset sorties. However, the more concerning point is the risk, with tanking being a single point failure in this type of force structure. Kind of like putting all your eggs in one basket. Without tanking, you can't go far or carry much.
To overcome the above and mitigate the risks, the requirement becomes somewhat paradoxical: more tankers with less dependency, or rather, without full dependency on tankers. There's the challenge.
Tanking behind a KC-130J isn't an issue of speed, they are plenty fast enough. I have been training the Marines here at MCAS Beaufort to hook up to these very Texacos. It's true they have to throttle up to get a good lead on your Hornet but it isn't an issue of performance and they can ceiling at over 30k feet which is tanking altitude anyway.Occum said:
Slim to nil I fear. Even the reports of additional C-130J's or A330's being purchased are mere rumour and speculation. Options such as equipping either of them for AAR duties is further to that.cherry said:
Even RAF will only get 9 available tankers with another 4-5 available in an emergency. Comparable to RAAF in many regards.Aussie Digger said:
Aussie Digger said:
Some good points here, so let's continue.WaterBoy said:On paper, the idea of 'second hand' airliners for conversion looks economically effective, but most of these aircraft are second hand for a reason. Improper maintenance procedures, corrosion around galleys & high airframe cycles generally lead to much higher acquisition & operating costs than previously projected. The main reason airlines opt for 'second hand' aircraft isn't the economics, it's the immediate availability of extra capacity that they offer.
And what of the rumour of RAAF picking up ex-Qantas A330's which are due to be "phased out" due to Qantas consolidating on new build B-787's?WaterBoy said:About a third the price of a new build B747-400F. For that very reason there is currently a high demand for B744's to be converted into freighters. In asia, Cathay Pacific, Dragonair & MAS Cargo are actively acquiring airframes, & in Dragonairs' case, are even prepared to source airframes with different engine suppliers. Qantas even attempted to acquire some airframes for conversion when it was considering a freight subsidiary. (despite being 'stung' by ex MAS aircraft before)
The demand for the B747 as a freighter is substantial, with the B747-400F & upcoming B747-800F being the heavyweight lifters of freight flying. As a further indication of this demand, the only order for the B747-800 is as a freighter, & the A380F is already on order for early delivery in 2009 with FEDEX & UPS.
Admittedly B747's do tend to have lower life cycles than most airliners so there is some economic advantage to their conversion. This combined with the current fuel prices has operators of B747 'classic' freighters are very keen to replace these airframes. Without substantial avionics upgrades these older jumbos are facing substantial airspace & noise restrictions worldwide.
The B747 as a refueller seems a massive overkill, with substantial operating restrictions & operational costs. Most of the RAAF bases have pavement restrictions limiting B747's to significantly less than their maximum weights. Generally, B747's burn 8-10 tons of fuel per hour, verses an A330 which burns 4-5 tons per hour.
The other argument concerning engine reliability & twins really isn't relevant. The inflight failure rate of modern turbofan engines is astoundingly low. Combined with continual engine parameter & trend monitoring unanticipated component failures rarely occur. Even if this were to occur, an A330 at maximum weight will still climb to ~FL150, or 'drift down' to FL240 at 300kts. I agree to RAAF should consider more AAR capability, I just don't think old B744's are the best or most cost effective option.
Regards,
WaterBoy