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

[rossfrb_1]

{snip}
The SH would last a little longer then the Hornets in current operations, but the problem is, the SH is designated for Williamtown "home of the fighter" if it truely was for "defence of the realm" then would it not be more pruedent to base it up north? How can we complain about a plane that is superior to our current crop, and have i not heard the other guys( NO POLITICS ALLOWED HERE!) say that SH along with F-22(hahahahahaha)in the future would suit Australia. WE CAN"T BUY IT!
bah, south park looks good tonight

You need not miss a thing, the episode should be available for online, viewing after it has aired at their video on demand site.
plus,
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2007/s2070484.htm
"...This program will be repeated about 11.35 pm Tuesday 30 October; also on ABC2 at 9.30 pm Wednesday and 8 am Thursday."

Also they have a guestbook that I think might get a workout as well.
All at http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/default.htm
And dare I suggest, if it is really bad, you could always report them to mediawatch!

 

[alexsa]

All hawks around the world may soon be grounded and require inspection.

Im not allowed to say anymore until it becomes public..

This suggest you have confidential and official information on the Hawk. Care to confirm as I was not aware you were 'in the industry' so to speak.

Parts often fail well before their lifetimne. Such causes of failure can be manufacturing fault, poor maintainance, damage etc.

The hawk in various iterations has been around a long time and some early aiframes are up for replacement and are a great deal older than 15 years. As such 'parts wearing out before time' ground "all hawks" worldwide is a questionable conclusion. Does you news relate to the Hawk127 as opposed to all variants.

 

[icelord]

You need not miss a thing, the episode should be available for online, viewing after it has aired at their video on demand site.
plus,
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2007/s2070484.htm
"...This program will be repeated about 11.35 pm Tuesday 30 October; also on ABC2 at 9.30 pm Wednesday and 8 am Thursday."

Also they have a guestbook that I think might get a workout as well.
All at http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/default.htm
And dare I suggest, if it is really bad, you could always report them to mediawatch!

that solves that problem thanks ross.
but i might not get a word in on face book, the hour delay would give most of the ppl on this site a chance to pan it before i could...i'm an optimist on Australian journos ability to cover defence stories....truely! When joe hildebrand starts covering ADF purchase of F22, then i'll listen!

 

[FutureTank]

Why is the F-111 comming up as the sole reason we are holding out against the wave of ruski jets coming in? The f-111 was bought as a deterent, and hey we were never attacked during the cold war, i'd say it worked!
The f-111 is as futuretank stated, a "BOMBER". The SU-27 is...a fighter, bomber Vs Fighter....de der de dan de(think star trek fight scene here) I truely truely have my doubts about four corners program tonight, and am dissapointed i will miss south park and supernatural( i flick between) for this beat up.
The SH would last a little longer then the Hornets in current operations, but the problem is, the SH is designated for Williamtown "home of the fighter" if it truely was for "defence of the realm" then would it not be more pruedent to base it up north? How can we complain about a plane that is superior to our current crop, and have i not heard the other guys( NO POLITICS ALLOWED HERE!) say that SH along with F-22(hahahahahaha)in the future would suit Australia. WE CAN"T BUY IT!
bah, south park looks good tonight

Janes Weekly announced that Indonesia is looking for external financing because the Government knocked back purchase of the next batch of six Sukhoi fighters.

 

[barra]

Hooroo, I'm only repeating what I have read re RAF testing.

Why cant the fuel be reused once it is drained? Pardon my ignorance

Mainly because the quality cannot be guaranteed after defueling and I doubt the facilities to screen or filter it are available(at the moment). The cost of such facilities I could only guess at, maybe cost of such a setup isn't worth the small amount that is wasted. :unknown

BTW, are you taking the p!ss out off my sign off? :

Hooroo

 

[barra]

Re: Four Corners

They were at Willytown a couple of weeks ago filming for this so called story. Seems like a beat up just so the journo can go for a jolly. I can't see anything coming out of tonights episode that we haven't already heard.

Hooroo

 

[FutureTank]

Mainly because the quality cannot be guaranteed after defueling and I doubt the facilities to screen or filter it are available(at the moment). The cost of such facilities I could only guess at, maybe cost of such a setup isn't worth the small amount that is wasted. :unknown

BTW, are you taking the p!ss out off my sign off? :

Hooroo

Barra...beg your pardon!
I actually neglected to look who wrote because of the late hour!!!
People have all sorts of incomprehensible avatars (not barra of course!), so I just give up...I was going to have Tally-Ho myself (being cavalry-inclined)...but thought maybe it could have been misconstrued as tobacco advertising

Ok, I'm a bit confused. Firstly I was under impression that aviation fuel is fairly high grade as far as fuels go in the first place. Secondly fuel filters had been installed on jet aircraft from the 50s if I'm not wrong, so which part of filtering do I not understand?!

Ok, I'm off to look for a US bomber thread because I'm way out of my depth on the statement that "In flight the B-2's positively charged electrostatic field, generated on its wing leading edges, and negatively charged (negative ions) exhaust flow, electrostatically alter the local gravity field. The net result is a gravitational potential gradient, which manifests itself as a powerful surge on the craft." :unknown

 

[barra]

Ok, I'm a bit confused. Firstly I was under impression that aviation is fairly high grade as far as fuels go in the first place. Secondly fuel filters had been installed on jet aircraft from the 50s if I'm not wrong, so which part of filtering do I not understand?!

Its just the way things were done, the fuel would have to be handled at least three times if it were to be recycled increasing the risk of contamination. So why risk your $50m aicraft for what is usually only a couple of thousand pounds of fuel? I am not an expert on fuel systems so you may be right about the filter. Off hand I can't think of one but I do know that some fuel is drained off weekly and inspected for water and particle contamination (?). A blackhander would be better qualified to comment.

BTW I was taking the p!ss about you taking the p!ss, if you know what I mean. If you want to sign off with Tally-ho then go for it, whatever rocks your boat I reckon.

Hooroo

 

[FutureTank]

Its just the way things were done, the fuel would have to be handled at least three times if it were to be recycled increasing the risk of contamination. So why risk your $50m aicraft for what is usually only a couple of thousand pounds of fuel? I am not an expert on fuel systems so you may be right about the filter. Off hand I can't think of one but I do know that some fuel is drained off weekly and inspected for water and particle contamination (?). A blackhander would be better qualified to comment.

BTW I was taking the p!ss about you taking the p!ss, if you know what I mean. If you want to sign off with Tally-ho then go for it, whatever rocks your boat I reckon.

Hooroo

I'll look forward to being correctd

And its...whatever rocks your tank
the answer is...a bigger tank nfloorl:

I suspect that also applies to aircraft in a different sense

 

[Tasman]

Re: Four Corners

They were at Willytown a couple of weeks ago filming for this so called story. Seems like a beat up just so the journo can go for a jolly. I can't see anything coming out of tonights episode that we haven't already heard.

Hooroo

The promo on the 7 pm Tasmanian ABC News tonight introduced one of the 'experts', none other than retired AVM Criss. Hardly a surprise as he seems to me to have been a constant critic of the current airforce top brass and recent airforce decision making re the selection of the SH and F-35. So it seems they will use the same line as the earlier 60 Minutes story which also featured AVM Criss and attacked the selection of the SH. According to the promo an error was made by the scientists who carried out the fatigue testing on the F-111 which lead to recommendations for its early withdrawal.

It will be interesting to see if it is just an attack for the purpose of embarrassing the RAAF and government or if they will actually suggest resurrecting the F-111 and cancelling the SH with all the operational, financial, political and credibility penalties that would be entailed. :shudder

Tas

 

[Tasman]

Defence Response to Four Corners Program

The ADF has launched a pre-emptive response to the Four Corners Story:

DEFENCE RESPONSE TO FOUR CORNERS



Defence rejects claims to be aired tonight by the Four Corners program that suggest Australia is conceding its crucial air superiority in the region by purchasing the F-18F Super Hornet.



Defence Spokesman Brigadier Andrew Nikolic said: “Defence rejects any assertion that our air superiority would be compromised. The Super Hornet is a true multi-role aircraft that spans the air combat spectrum, including maritime strike that is so vital for Australia.



“The acquisition of 24 Super Hornets will ensure Australia’s air combat superiority well into the future and will enable us to maintain our edge in all aspects of air combat as the Air Force goes through the transition from the F-111 and Hornet to JSF.”



Group Captain Steve Roberton, Head of the Defence Air Combat Transition Office, reinforced the capability edge offered by the Super Hornet.



As one of Australia's most experienced fighter pilots, he said: “If a Super Hornet was to meet a Su-30 in the next 5-8 years and I had to bet my life on the outcome, I'll sit in the Super Hornet F-18F cockpit every time. Any pilot who has flown the new Block II F-18F with AESA radar would do the same.



“The Super Hornet will test any modern air defence system. The airframe is designed for signature reduction and the aircraft is built around the most advanced radar in any non-fifth generation aircraft in the world.



“Its advanced radar, weapons and electronic warfare suite make it a superb dogfighting system and it can defeat an enemy’s ability to shoot before the Super Hornet,” Group Captain Robertson said.



Brigadier Nikolic reinforced the importance of a complete capability package to support any advanced fighter aircraft. He said: “Reliable, sustainable logistics support, the best training and a full air combat system of command and control is required to defeat modern threats. No other aircraft can meet this requirement and complement Australia’s existing air combat system better than the F-18F Super Hornet.”



Media contact: Defence Media Liaison (02) 6265 3343 or (0408) 498 664

http://www.defence.gov.au/media/DepartmentalTpl.cfm?CurrentId=7222

I thought this was a pretty good press release. The response concentrates on the future and the role that the RAAF expects the SH to play in Australia's future air combat force. It has not ventured into the past re the claims that AVM Criss will apparently make that will suggest there was no need to replace the F-111. If these claims are made tonight, as suggested in the promo, I hope that the Defence will respond appropriately.

Tas

 

[barra]

As one of Australia's most experienced fighter pilots, he said: “If a Super Hornet was to meet a Su-30 in the next 5-8 years and I had to bet my life on the outcome, I'll sit in the Super Hornet F-18F cockpit every time. Any pilot who has flown the new Block II F-18F with AESA radar would do the same.



“The Super Hornet will test any modern air defence system. The airframe is designed for signature reduction and the aircraft is built around the most advanced radar in any non-fifth generation aircraft in the world.



“Its advanced radar, weapons and electronic warfare suite make it a superb dogfighting system and it can defeat an enemy’s ability to shoot before the Super Hornet,” Group Captain Robertson said.

Zed Roberton has the credentials to talk about such things, he is a Fighter Combat Instructor (FCI) and was CO of 75SQN for three years.

Hooroo

 

[icelord]

Wow, if i didn't know better i'd vote against the government for this outrageour waste of tax payers money...but thankfully i do know better then that.

I was most impressed by the amount of critics versus supporters, last count....5(includes reporter) to....anyone? Hell the one guy in support of the SH was the guy who has to fly the damn thing, and even he said he'd kick a SUs arse, do you really trust the guy who watches the news versus the guy watching the SU on his radar, and i thought Indo only had 2-6 atm, and a review in the future of more. Do you really think a FA/18 Hornet will be able to hold out if a SH cannot? Do they not realise how stupid it is to say the upgraded model can't do it, but the old one will have to.

I was glad to see Kopp, anyone else agree with his analytical ability...or the SU poster over his shoulder....hahahaha

It was sad to see the Dassault Rep unable to spend 5 years here and only get to enjoy the drive to canberra, i mean really, any else see the drama in booking a meeting with the Defmin and Brass, then finding out on the drive over your meeting is a bust, thats a little rich, he found out long before then but thought he'd act out what he could.

The whole thing was outrageous, it put 4 people on a story without giving any other perspective. And anyone who wonders why i don't trust Australian journos to cover defence properly need to see 4 courners to understand

Icelord

 

[Tasman]

Wow, if i didn't know better i'd vote against the government for this outrageour waste of tax payers money...but thankfully i do know better then that.

I was most impressed by the amount of critics versus supporters, last count....5(includes reporter) to....anyone? Hell the one guy in support of the SH was the guy who has to fly the damn thing, and even he said he'd kick a SUs arse, do you really trust the guy who watches the news versus the guy watching the SU on his radar, and i thought Indo only had 2-6 atm, and a review in the future of more. Do you really think a FA/18 Hornet will be able to hold out if a SH cannot? Do they not realise how stupid it is to say the upgraded model can't do it, but the old one will have to.

I was glad to see Kopp, anyone else agree with his analytical ability...or the SU poster over his shoulder....hahahaha

It was sad to see the Dassault Rep unable to spend 5 years here and only get to enjoy the drive to canberra, i mean really, any else see the drama in booking a meeting with the Defmin and Brass, then finding out on the drive over your meeting is a bust, thats a little rich, he found out long before then but thought he'd act out what he could.

The whole thing was outrageous, it put 4 people on a story without giving any other perspective. And anyone who wonders why i don't trust Australian journos to cover defence properly need to see 4 courners to understand

Icelord

I have to agree with Icelord that this was a highly biased program. AVM Criss, together with Kopp, Goon, Chris Mills, an apparently disaffected former 'air warfare strategist' who seems to have fallen out with his superiors, and Hugh White were all put up against a lone pilot. It was interesting that a pilot who will actually have to fly the SH was full of praise for it but his opinion didn't seem to carry much weight compared with that of the experts.

The F-111, we were told, could be kept going virtually forever. The program showed a hypothetical wargame which demonstrated that the RAAF could have carried out a successful strike against Indonesia during the Timor Crisis in 1999 but would suffer huge losses if it tried it in 2012 with the FA-18F and without the F-111.

In my opinion the program was a hatchet job on the RAAF leadership, the Defence Minister and the government in general by what seemed to me to be a group of disaffected people. No doubt some criticism may have been justified but IMO the extent of criticism of the airforce decision making process in this program was most unfair.

Tas

 

[FutureTank]

F/A-18 SH vs SU-30

The ABC report on the F/A-18 SH purchase decision was an interesting program.
As always it was as interesting for what was said, as it was for what wasn't said.

I particularly enjoyed the hypothetical missions conducted by the two former serving RAAF officers.
An unstated number of Australian F/A-18s are heading out into Indonesian airspace. They are met by four SU-30 Mk2s.
As of now Indonesia has precisely two such aircraft, the others being SU-27s. SU-30 is the seond generation development of the SU-27 that made its first flight in 1977

SU-30s hastily completed development in early 1990s when the new Russian Air Force proved unable to purchase them in quantity, and marketing took over.

So we have a pair of early 1980s airframes and a pair of 1990s airframes facing what...? The opposition on a strike mission would be at a minimum a flight of strike F/A-18 SHs with a flight of escorting F/A-18s. The tanker would have (due to its importance to the rest of the mission) another flight of F/A-18s...but wait.

There are 24 F/A-18 SHs in the purchase. there is also more then one F/A-18 squadron available. Even with 0 warning, two squadrons can be available to escort a dozen SHs. That is at least three strike groups of at least 36 aircraft.
What is flying against them?

We already know that one group of 12 is being intercepted by two SU-27s and SU-30s.

There may be some early F-16 airframes available to intercept the other groups, but their serviceability is highly doubtful c.2012, as is the use of A-4s which are still flying.

There could be some Chengdu Jiān 10 that are finally flying after 30 years of development, but they lack the range, and must remain as CAP for the possible Australian mission targets.

There could be some MiG-29s which are superior to the F-16s, but are air-defense interceptors and not fighters as such, so they would be encountered only if the Australian aircraft decided to enter their range, and only if they have the capability to counter electronic warfare systems, and are directed by a very good ground radar system.
These capabilities are not evident in Indonesia now, nor are they expected to enter service due to fiscal difficulties.

So where is the capability gap left by the F-111 withdrawal?

The real capability gap is that F-111s allowed the ADF to operate ground troops fairly long distances from Australia, and still obtain some air delivered ordnance. However with acquisition of Canberra class, deck basing of aircraft is again possible since HMAS Melbourne retirement.

The real gap is between the need to request F-111 flights from Australia in support of ground operations, and having aircraft available on call for close air support missions off the deck in the way A-4s used to operate.
I'd say that RAAF and the Army have to really pray that F-35Bs are purchased with the F-35As, and forget about F-111s.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I'm committing the sin of double posting...

Some of the points conveniently missed by Andrew Fowler.

- We need an interim aircraft as well because the centre barrel program has gone a little pear shaped
- the F-111 cannot go into contested airspace under current RAAF doctrine without an escort - as it can't survive. Its a strike platform - not a fighter
- that one of the big issues is that there are no spare parts for the rocket ejection systems. the current stocks decay at 2010-2012. After that if there is a catastrophic event, then there's no guarantee that the pilots can eject
- that their cute 2012 scenario wasn't gamed out with the F-111 where they definitely would not last - even against a short flight of Sooks (and that assumes that the indons have weapons)
- that the only country that is on our immedoate threat matrix is Indonesia - and they don't have the weapons for them, they don't get the requisite hours, and they certainly don't have more modern weapons (if any at the moment)
- the Malays are our allies
- the PLAAF would have to run extended missions to poke Aust - and thats how likely?
- The Indians also have Bears in the Andamans - does that mean that they're going to bomb us as they're within range of Adelaide and the JORN transmitters. What scenario sees the Indians waging war on Oz? Their focus of interest are the Straits and Myanmar.
- in light of the above - who running Sooks is on our threat matrix?
- the 2012 sceanrio was a joke. The Indons have 4 Sooks, so how would they go in on max weapons load against a full squadron of Shornets backpaddled by Wedgetail and JORN? They're outgunned and outnumbered as well as blind against what JORN and Wedgetail bring to the party.
- The indons don't have AESA either, neither do the Malays or Indons and all of them will be seen by JORN and SWR well before they get into intercept range.
- The Rafale is even less successful than the Shornet on export sales and the French have been pushing it to everyone


and there's more, but you get my point.

shonky amateurish journalism

oh, and aparently we have tankers running around with no escorts running shotgun!

btw, the Indons are basically inop with the F-16's. IIRC they have less than a flight in working condition. ie less than 4 functional combat ready aircraft.

 

[Aussie Digger]

I hope Goon and Kopp DO find out who I am and sue me. Because their attempts at engaging in this "debate" are pathetic.

The little "war game" shown in this debate was also laughable. It didn't touch on Australia's ability to STRIKE, let alone any OTHER option in a war scenario. Indonesia has increased it's air combat capability, but Australia hasn't. Apparently evolved AMRAAM/ASRAAM/AIM-9X,JDAM/JASSM, Wedgetail, Vigilaire, JORN, and the ever so vulnerable tankers, you know, the ones that are shot down ALL the time, won't make the slightest difference in any air combat scenario.

Neither will Australia's 4x air combat squadrons, compared to Indonesia's 1x combat squadron.

Thank GOD, THEY are not responsible for planning Australian military operations because THEN we really WOULD be in trouble.

 

[ELP]

Hi AD. Wouldn't hang my hat on JASSM or Wedgetail until they actually work. JASSM is in large trouble and at this time can still go either way.

 

[FutureTank]

tankers

Ahm...I was thinking (I know, dangerous), but would the tankers actually need to leave Australian airspace in that scenario?

 

[Aussie Digger]

Hi AD. Wouldn't hang my hat on JASSM or Wedgetail until they actually work. JASSM is in large trouble and at this time can still go either way.

Like those who hang their hat on the idea that the Sukhoi IS actually so vastly superior?

Or those who hang their hats on the fact that the Russians are actually WILLING to fund the remainder of Indonesia's SOLE (planned, it doesn't actually exist of course) squadron of Sukhoi's? And arm them? And support them, etc etc...

JASSM "might" be cancelled. Given how much coin has been thrown into the program already, I'd suggest it's more likely than not to continue.

Wedgetail, well it's been delayed. Name a major military project with this much development that isn't.

P.S. If anyone wants to read the transcript for this rubbish, it's available here:

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2007/s2073943.htm