Royal Australian Air Force [RAAF] News, Discussions and Updates

[AGRA]

Really?? i would have assumed the formation time per aircraft would be similar, and 4 aircraft still have to form up on the tanker, boom or no boom. The only significant practicle benifit i can see is 2 at a time. Hence 7 minets vs 12, perhaps its closer to 10 vs 15?

Anyway would you consider this small (IMO) dissadvantage worthy of a statement like we would have to double our tanking fleet so we can refule at a similar time??? laughable. the USAF contines to use this system so it cant be that inferior. Anyway if the planed 100 F35A aquisition goes ahead then all of ourplatforms will use a boomb, however this is hardly a reason to aquire F35C is it?

The main reason USAF retains a boom centered IFR fleet and we will acquire it on the A330 MRTTs is to do with refuelling large aircraft, not fighters. USAF is the world's largest operator of strategic bombers and strategic transports. A C-17 has a fuel load of 111 tonnes, compared to around 10 tonnes for a tactical fighter (an F-111 has a maximum fuel load of 19 tonnes) so when you have such large quantities of fuel to transfer like to a C-17 of B-52 the efficiencies of the boom become apparent.

If you are refuelling flights of fighters then cycle time is more important, unless you have the luxury of one tanker per fighter – which considering the small fuel offloads per fighter and larger tankers like the A330 is very inefficient (carrying 111 tonnes of fuel and offloading about 6-8 tonnes per Hornet/Lightning II/Eagle). This is why there is a persistent push for smaller tankers in the KC-135 and even Gulfstream 550 size. To increase the ratio of tankers to fighters. Ideally the fighter package – say 12 units – would all refuel at the same time and not have to dilly dally about waiting for all the aircraft to cycle through.

As for F-35A it will be available in both receptacle and probe versions or even both, according to Lockheed Martin. So any F-35A purchaser can ask for a specific IFR fit. Obviously USAF will go receptacle but many of the other countries will go for probes.

 

[barra]

As for F-35A it will be available in both receptacle and probe versions or even both, according to Lockheed Martin. So any F-35A purchaser can ask for a specific IFR fit. Obviously USAF will go receptacle but many of the other countries will go for probes.

That's interesting Agra, I wonder if the RAAF will opt for the IFR probe option on their F-35A's for the reasons you have outlined. Would make sense to speed up the offload of fuel and make best use of the small tanker fleet we will operate. I am assuming the probe will be retractable?

Hooroo

 

[Ryttare]

A C-17 has a fuel load of 111 tonnes, compared to around 10 tonnes for a tactical fighter (an F-111 has a maximum fuel load of 19 tonnes) so when you have such large quantities of fuel to transfer like to a C-17 of B-52 the efficiencies of the boom become apparent.

What is the difference in fuel flow between a boom an a probe? I thought that the fuel flow of the probe system had been increased since USAF decided to develope the boom system and the difference isn't that big today.

 

[AGRA]

That's interesting Agra, I wonder if the RAAF will opt for the IFR probe option on their F-35A's for the reasons you have outlined. Would make sense to speed up the offload of fuel and make best use of the small tanker fleet we will operate. I am assuming the probe will be retractable?

The F-35 probe is retractable and mounted to the starboard of the cockpit. You can see it in the retracted flush configuration in the graphics of the F-35B and F-35C at:

http://www.jsf.mil/f35/f35_variants.htm

Deciding on final configuration for the RAAF’s F-35A will give AVM Harvey’s IPT quite a bit of work. Things like probes vs receptacles and even whether to go with an internal or dismountable pod gun. Not to mention weapons options like ASRAAM and anti-ship missiles.

What is the difference in fuel flow between a boom an a probe? I thought that the fuel flow of the probe system had been increased since USAF decided to develope the boom system and the difference isn't that big today.

It depends on the actual boom and drogue systems. The RAAF’s KC-30Bs will be able to carry up to 111 tonnes of fuel and offload 65 tonnes at 1,000nm from base with two hours on station. Maximum fuel offload rate for the EADS CASA Aerial Refuelling Boom System (ARBS) is 8,000 lb/min though it still needs to demonstrate this. The two pods will be Cobham 905E probe and drogue refuelling systems with fuel flow rates up to 3,000 lb/min.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

The F-35 probe is retractable and mounted to the starboard of the cockpit. You can see it in the retracted flush configuration in the graphics of the F-35B and F-35C at:

http://www.jsf.mil/f35/f35_variants.htm

Deciding on final configuration for the RAAF’s F-35A will give AVM Harvey’s IPT quite a bit of work. Things like probes vs receptacles and even whether to go with an internal or dismountable pod gun. Not to mention weapons options like ASRAAM and anti-ship missiles..

I wasnt aware there was that level of customisation allowed in the F35 programe. Wouldnt it mean, to some extent we would be operating unique platforms???

 

[AGRA]

I wasnt aware there was that level of customisation allowed in the F35 programe. Wouldnt it mean, to some extent we would be operating unique platforms???

Everyone's aircraft are going to be a bit different, air force X may require type Y radios, etc or might chose GE/RR over P&W engines. However these are really the add on type things. The basic aircraft vehicle system and mission system will all be the same. As for major differences amongst the F-35As the IFR, gun and engine are pretty much it.

 

[swerve]

What is the difference in fuel flow between a boom an a probe? I thought that the fuel flow of the probe system had been increased since USAF decided to develope the boom system and the difference isn't that big today.

There's still a big difference, but for fighters it doesn't usually matter. Hoses can usually deliver fuel as fast as they can take it in, so two hoses refuel fighters twice as fast as one boom. It matters for large aircraft, such as B-52s & C-17s. i.e. as Agra said.

Interesting US congressional report on the matter -
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL32910.pdf

And some comparisons of transfer rates (scroll down to AERIAL TANKERS) -
http://www.fas.org/spp/aircraft/part02.htm

Various NATO air force tankers - courtesy of RAF -
http://www.raf.mod.uk/rafcms/mediafiles/9B8CD1C1_1143_EC82_2ED39C61096083C7.pdf
http://www.raf.mod.uk/rafcms/mediafiles/9B87AEBB_1143_EC82_2EE61B84A6564FE5.pdf

A330MRTT specs for both RAF & RAAF -
http://www.zap16.com/mil fact/A330-200MRTT Tanker.htm
The RAF will have a centreline hose with a higher fuel flow than the underwing hoses, but still only half the boom rate.

 

[rebound87]

Labor white paper

Labor believes it has identified major failings by the Howard Government to give taxpayers value for their defence dollars, in approved contracts worth more than $51 billion over the next decade. But its ad hoc approach to military purchasing had opened up a dangerous air force capability gap, Opposition defence spokesman Joel Fitzgibbon said

Labor would as a priority begin work on a new defence white paper to be completed by the end of next year, he said yesterday. It would include a Royal Australian Air Force air capability review and examination of the Government's involvement in the $9billion US F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program, Mr Fitzgibbon said.

Labor would join a push from Japan for the US to overturn its ban on foreign sale of the F-22 air superiority fighter over concerns about sharing stealth and other protected technology.

Source: The Australian

Interesting to read, hope to hear if labor actually put out some more policy on defence spending before the election. Especially like to hear more on the air compatibility review

Its a pity that i don't see labor getting anywhere with joining Japan on pushing Washington to overturn the ban on the sale of F-22's

 

[Tasman]

Interesting to read, hope to hear if labor actually put out some more policy on defence spending before the election. Especially like to hear more on the air compatibility review

Its a pity that i don't see labor getting anywhere with joining Japan on pushing Washington to overturn the ban on the sale of F-22's

We have been expecting this. I may be proven wrong but I expect that once the Labor Party are fully briefed by the RAAF (presuming they actually win government) they will re-affirm Australia's commitment to the F-35.

Tas

 

[Grand Danois]

We have been expecting this. I may be proven wrong but I expect that once the Labor Party are fully briefed by the RAAF (presuming they actually win government) they will re-affirm Australia's commitment to the F-35.

Tas

Fully concur. This seems like an example of opposition politics, where any proposal or policy just have to be different than the encumbent partys. Labor is fully aware that they're not gonna get the F-22A, so it is a free ride proposing an alternative path, as they very well know that the future is locked in.

If they get in office, they'll get refused by the USG, then they'll go the F-35 road anyway.

Predictable.

 

[rossfrb_1]

Fully concur. This seems like an example of opposition politics, where any proposal or policy just have to be different than the encumbent partys. Labor is fully aware that they're not gonna get the F-22A, so it is a free ride proposing an alternative path, as they very well know that the future is locked in.

If they get in office, they'll get refused by the USG, then they'll go the F-35 road anyway.

Predictable.

Well, the date for the federal election was announced yesterday. This is just the start of the election campaign. Given that so many people are saying the opposition leader looks like a younger version of the prime minister. I'm guessing that this is one of the first of many attempts for Kev to look different in 07! There are going to be so many interviews in the next 36 days or whatever - and currently Kev is having a hard time trying to differentiate his party from the incumbent coalition in a lot of areas.
(Pulp mill anyone?)
(workplace relations excluded ).
Now he can say that Labor have a 'radically' different policy on Defence. As you say, a free ride - so long as no one seriously looks at the detail.
Lets face it, how many political commentators are really clued in on defence matters?

rb

 

[Grand Danois]

The Labor support predates the announcement of elections, though. The risk is that the US will shut the door permanently for Raptor exports if pushed for a decision...

It is amazing how politics differ so little. Here in Denmark it is the same: the incumbent and the oppostion agree on too much, so the opposition has just recently found out they can antagonise over the upcoming fighter buy, and has come with all sorts of alternatives.

Politics is all the same, regardless of which end of the world you live in.

Well, the date for the federal election was announced yesterday. This is just the start of the election campaign. Given that so many people are saying the opposition leader looks like a younger version of the prime minister. I'm guessing that this is one of the first of many attempts for Kev to look different in 07! There are going to be so many interviews in the next 36 days or whatever - and currently Kev is having a hard time trying to differentiate his party from the incumbent coalition in a lot of areas.
(Pulp mill anyone?)
(workplace relations excluded ).
Now he can say that Labor have a 'radically' different policy on Defence. As you say, a free ride - so long as no one seriously looks at the detail.
Lets face it, how many political commentators are really clued in on defence matters?

rb

 

[FutureTank]

We have been expecting this. I may be proven wrong but I expect that once the Labor Party are fully briefed by the RAAF (presuming they actually win government) they will re-affirm Australia's commitment to the F-35.

Tas

Not to make a political statement, but it seems to me that historically speaking Labour has been Defence-ignorant.

 

[FutureTank]

Fully concur. This seems like an example of opposition politics, where any proposal or policy just have to be different than the encumbent partys. Labor is fully aware that they're not gonna get the F-22A, so it is a free ride proposing an alternative path, as they very well know that the future is locked in.

If they get in office, they'll get refused by the USG, then they'll go the F-35 road anyway.

Predictable.

Or worse, if refused on the F-22, they will exit F-35 commitment and purchase Typhoon just to spite the Americans (assuming its a Republican Administration still in the White House)

 

[rossfrb_1]

Or worse, if refused on the F-22, they will exit F-35 commitment and purchase Typhoon just to spite the Americans (assuming its a Republican Administration still in the White House)

Maybe if Mark Latham had still been there!
I doubt it though. Aussie businesses are pulling in some work from the JSF project. I think most of that would dry up if the JSF was cancelled for the RAAF just to be petty. The yanks have got bigger sticks than we do.
"So you want a fourth aegis system do you? OK that'll be a billion dollars!
Oh, so we shipped the dumbed down version for the last 3, sorryeeee...":nutkick


rb

 

[FutureTank]

Maybe if Mark Latham had still been there!
I doubt it though. Aussie businesses are pulling in some work from the JSF project. I think most of that would dry up if the JSF was cancelled for the RAAF just to be petty. The yanks have got bigger sticks than we do.
"So you want a fourth aegis system do you? OK that'll be a billion dollars!
Oh, so we shipped the dumbed down version for the last 3, sorryeeee...":nutkick
rb

All I have to say is ....

 

[FutureTank]

Weapons for F/A-18E/F Super Hornet Aircraft (correction)

(Source: US Defense Security Cooperation Agency; dated Oct. 11, web-posted Oct. 12, 2007)

This release replaces a previous news release dated October 4, 2007 (transmittal no. 08-12) because it contained inaccuracies.

WASHINGTON --- The Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress of a possible Foreign Military Sale to Australia of weapons for F/A-18E/F Super Hornet aircraft as well as associated equipment and services.

The total value, if all options are exercised, could be as high as $617 million.

The Government of Australia has requested a possible sale of 47 AIM-9X SIDEWINDER Missiles, 20 Captive Air Training Missiles (CATMs), 16 Special Air Training Missiles (NATMs), 4 Tactical WGU-51/B Guidance Units, 8 CATM-9X WGU-51/B Guidance Units, 50 AGM-154 Joint Standoff Weapons (JSOW), 18 AN/ASQ-228 (V2) Advanced Targeting Forward-Looking Infrared (ATFLIR) Pods, 24 AN/ALQ-214 Radio Frequency Countermeasures, 90 Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing Systems (JHMCS), 32 AN/PVS-9 Night Vision Goggles (NVG), 16 Multifunctional Information Distribution System-Low Volume Terminals (MIDS-LVT), system integration and testing, software development/integration, test sets and support equipment, spare and repair parts, publications and technical documents, U.S. Government and contractor technical assistance, and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated cost is $617 million.

Australia is an important ally in the Western Pacific. The strategic location of this political and economic power contributes significantly to ensuring peace and economic stability in the region. Australia’s efforts in peacekeeping and humanitarian operations have made a significant impact to regional political and economic stability and have served U.S. national security interests. This proposed sale is consistent with those objectives and facilitates burden sharing with our allies.

Australia recently purchased 24 F/A-18E/F aircraft, notified to Congress under Section 36(b) of the Arms Export Control Act on 6 February 2007. These weapons systems will be integrated on Australia’s F/A-18E/F aircraft. The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.

The principal contractors will be The Boeing Company, St. Louis, Missouri, General Electric Aircraft Engines, Lynn, Massachusetts, and Raytheon Missile Systems, Tucson, Arizona. There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.

Implementation of this sale will require approximately eight contractor representatives to provide technical and logistics support in Australia for two years. U.S. Government and contractor representatives will also participate in program management and technical reviews for one-week intervals twice annually.

There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
This notice of a potential sale is required by law; it does not mean that the sale has been concluded.

-ends-

 

[FutureTank]

Alcoa Awarded $360 Million Contract by Lockheed Martin

wrong thread

 

[jaffo4011]

Or worse, if refused on the F-22, they will exit F-35 commitment and purchase Typhoon just to spite the Americans (assuming its a Republican Administration still in the White House)

in what way,whatsoever would that be worse??????

the typhoon is a more capable air to air fighter than the f35 and its air to ground capability is up and running and will be even more formidable by the time an aussie order materialised!......and its a lot cheaper than the raptor,esp if you consider the local manufacturing package that would go with it.
i dont know where this anti typhoon snobbery comes from,the aircraft is superb and doesnt deserve this kind of attitude towards it.

 

[Aussie Digger]

in what way,whatsoever would that be worse??????

the typhoon is a more capable air to air fighter than the f35 and its air to ground capability is up and running and will be even more formidable by the time an aussie order materialised!......and its a lot cheaper than the raptor,esp if you consider the local manufacturing package that would go with it.
i dont know where this anti typhoon snobbery comes from,the aircraft is superb and doesnt deserve this kind of attitude towards it.

In what particular way is the Typhoon "better" than the F-35A in A2A?

A slight acceleration advantage perhaps? A slight high speed maneuverability advantage? A possible ability (not proven as yet, due to the early stage of F-35 development) to sustain slightly higher G's for slightly longer?

Such things make SO much difference in these days of BVR missile shots and 60G plus HOBS heaters...

Personally, a high level of LO characteristics, something the Typhoon will NEVER possess, combined with good platform performance and outstanding sensor/avionics/EW packages are going to provide a greater overall capability than the relatively few advantages Typhoon posseses.

As to it's A2G capability, the ability to drop 1x single weapons type, (Paveway II) does not make it a good aircraft. It's got an awfully large amount of development and research to go, before it will even come close to meeting RAAF requirements for a next generation combat aircraft...