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

[SpazSinbad]

The article from the Australian.

Basically he is relying on a diagram of which he wont name the author and the diagram actually has a number of easily disproved figures while also relying on the RAAF to do nothing while the opposition closes in.

Another former defence person playing politician and showing him self to be an idiot.

You'll read the lah-de-dah soon - transcript Senate Hearing available soon: Estimates Transcript Schedule – Parliament of Australia

 

[Todjaeger]

USAF did do a study but funding was cancelled due to the 2006 Quadrennial Defence Review, it was speculated to be based on the F22

http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Documents/2005/January 2005/0105raptor.pdf

A study is quite a bit different from a flying prototype, never mind LRIP or full rate production aircraft.

In a nutshell, it seems that the capabilities gained by having a modern attack/bomber aircraft with capabilities like the F-111 had, is deemed at present not worth what it would likely cost to develop and build such aircraft. Given some of the standoff capabilities which are coming online now, that does make sense.

 

[hairyman]

I am sorry for starting this. You must make allowances for age. By the time I have finished typing something I have forgotten what it was about.
Anyway, does everybody think we will take on the new tanks for the Super Hornet, or wont we have them for long enough to make it worthwhile?

 

[ADMk2]

I am sorry for starting this. You must make allowances for age. By the time I have finished typing something I have forgotten what it was about.
Anyway, does everybody think we will take on the new tanks for the Super Hornet, or wont we have them for long enough to make it worthwhile?

Do you mean the Conformal Fuel Tanks?

If so, I think you’ve hit the nail on the head, it will probably depend how long the RAAF keeps the Super Hornet and perhaps Growler in-service. RAAF is keeping their Super Hornets in lockstep with the USN, so if the USN does and we stay in lockstep...

 

[Mercator]

Dear old Jim Moran really should stick to talking about helicopters. Why is it when former military officers become parliamentarians they tend to become expert in everything that ever wore a uniform no matter what colour.
His latest effort to bag the F 35 is really quite a farce, maybe he's been speaking to Cop and co.

Nocookies

I'm not sure Senator Molan was putting the view himself, actually. I watched him deliver the question live. He made a joke at the beginning about being a lowly army aviator or something as the CAF and CDF got into place, and never offered his own opinion (as far as I can recall). He simply described a diagram that was "doing the rounds" or words to that effect. I think he might even have suggested it was a very simplistic diagram.

Anyway I got the distinct impression he was setting it up so that the CAF and CDF could swat it down. Maybe he felt it was his duty to bring up anything topical like that. If that wasn't his intention, it was exactly how it went down, and he offered no pushback whatsoever. So if he was a *true believer*, he wasn't showing it.

I could be wrong, but I'm reserving judgement.

 

[ngatimozart]

Do you mean the Conformal Fuel Tanks?

If so, I think you’ve hit the nail on the head, it will probably depend how long the RAAF keeps the Super Hornet and perhaps Growler in-service. RAAF is keeping their Super Hornets in lockstep with the USN, so if the USN does and we stay in lockstep...

It has been suggested that the USN should explore integrating the SM-6 missile with the Super Hornet Block III (CFT variant). The argument is that since the retirement of the F-14 and Phoenix missile combination, the USN has a range gap between the AIM-120D and Russian and Chinese AAM. This suggestion would bridge that gap.

Giving the Super Hornet More Punch: Think SM-6

 

[t68]

A study is quite a bit different from a flying prototype, never mind LRIP or full rate production aircraft.

In a nutshell, it seems that the capabilities gained by having a modern attack/bomber aircraft with capabilities like the F-111 had, is deemed at present not worth what it would likely cost to develop and build such aircraft. Given some of the standoff capabilities which are coming online now, that does make sense.

Disagree your looking at it with hindsight and capabilities coming over the next few years. The FB-22 was cancelled because of budgetary reasons not the capability set USAF required at the time frame. FB 22 was set to become 21st century version of the F111 but also be consistent with improved stealth capabilities, precision strike capability, and the ability to defend itself against enemy fighters deeper behind the FEBA than currently available. Something deeply needed within the RAAF with our limited number of AAR tanker and super hornets

Air Force Secretary James Roche told the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) that he envisioned a strike force that included the potential for 150 FB-22s, along with 60 Boeing [BA] B-1s equipped with Lockheed Martin Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missiles, 21 Northrop Grumman [NOC] B-2s and the 381 F/A-22s with the Small Diameter Bomb (SDB).

and

Following testimony from Air Force Secretary James Roche to the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) about for the potential acquisition of 150 FB-22 bomber versions of Lockheed Martin's [LMT] F/A-22 fighter, the Air Force recently sent a clarification to Capitol Hill explaining how a potential bomber program could mature in the future.

"With an FY '04 start, two FB-22s could be delivered in FY '11, with full-rate production in FY '16," the clarification said, citing recommendations from a defense planning guidance (DPG) study completed last summer. The clarification also suggested expanding the study process for FB-22, and potentially revisit the sizing of an F/A-22/FB-22 force in the FY '05 Acquisition Program Memorandum. …

 

[Boagrius]

It has been suggested that the USN should explore integrating the SM-6 missile with the Super Hornet Block III (CFT variant). The argument is that since the retirement of the F-14 and Phoenix missile combination, the USN has a range gap between the AIM-120D and Russian and Chinese AAM. This suggestion would bridge that gap.

Giving the Super Hornet More Punch: Think SM-6

SM6 seems like overkill if a longer spear is being sought quickly. Absolute monster of a missile - would a SH even be able to lug it off a carrier deck? I would have thought ESSM BlkII or AMRAAM-ER would make more sense.

 

[SpazSinbad]

SM6 seems like overkill if a longer spear is being sought quickly. Absolute monster of a missile - would a SH even be able to lug it off a carrier deck? I would have thought ESSM BlkII or AMRAAM-ER would make more sense.

Nearly fell off me perch with 'Shornet carrying the SM6'! The lawyer author well qualified otherwise did not understand 'the test with the F-35B and SM missile from USS Desert Ship. Later this year the USN plans to test the F-35C with SM fired from a ship at sea. AHA the SM is fired NOT from the aircraft. MADL was used to communicate Aircraft to SHIP firing missile. Amazing author confabulation there.

A big piece missing is the 'carrier suit' part. Carrier Suitability is a big deal if one is not concerned about it therein is a trap (pun intended). I'll 'imagine' that the SM is not only heavy but EXPENSIVE. Not firing one means bringing it back onboard. Is the new Shornet III capable? I dunno. Lots of 'SHAKE RATTLE & ROLL' testing by VX-23 would need to verify this aspect.

 

[Todjaeger]

Disagree your looking at it with hindsight and capabilities coming over the next few years. The FB-22 was cancelled because of budgetary reasons not the capability set USAF required at the time frame. FB 22 was set to become 21st century version of the F111 but also be consistent with improved stealth capabilities, precision strike capability, and the ability to defend itself against enemy fighters deeper behind the FEBA than currently available. Something deeply needed within the RAAF with our limited number of AAR tanker and super hornets

Respectfully, no I was and am not.

I had a relative who worked on portions of the B-1 bomber, the F-111D, and back in the mid-80's the Lockheed portion of the ATF (Advanced Tactical Fighter) which ultimately led to the development and production of the F-22 Raptor. In talks with him about various defence projects he had been a part of, I came to certain conclusions about aspects of US defence development and procurement.

One of the things to keep in mind is that there can be a vast difference between what a service might want, and what it requires in order to function.

With that in mind, consider a timeline of US aircraft and PGM developments and service histories.

The requirement for what became the F-22 came out in 1981, with RFP's in 1986, and YF-22 prototypes in 1990.

The initial programmes which lead to the F-35 Lightning II/JSF kicked off in 1993.

In 1994 initial production examples of the F-22 started being manufactured.

What became the AGM-158 JASSM programme started in 1995.

The F-111 was retired from US service in 1998, without any development programme running for a replacement.

The AGM-154 JSOW also entered service (not development, but service) in 1998.

The SLAM-ER version of the AGM-84 Harpoon reached IOC in 2000.

With all the above listed, there are/were several things which IMO had implications people have overlooked.

The first is regarding the budget. While yes, FB-22 development apart from some studies and drawings might have been terminated in 2006 due to costs, if the USAF had considered the role/capability truly important to the future USAF OrBat, then other programmes would have felt the fall of the budgetary axe.

Relating to the importance, or lack thereof, the USAF retired the F-111 in 1998 after ~31 years of service, without a direct replacement. To me, this speaks volumes and in much the same way as did/does the US and other navies decommissioning and ceasing production of battleships.

The third item is that the US, at the time the decision was made to pull the plug on the FB-22 studies, had just finished getting a 5th gen LO fighter platform into service after 24 years, and had another 5th gen LO platform that had been in the works for 13 years (and would be another 9 years before entering service). What that would strongly suggest to me is that developing other 5th gen LO attack, strike, or bomber platforms would likely take years of development work and associated resources. I can certainly see how the DOD and USAF had other, higher priorities in 2006.

 

[CJR]

It has been suggested that the USN should explore integrating the SM-6 missile with the Super Hornet Block III (CFT variant). The argument is that since the retirement of the F-14 and Phoenix missile combination, the USN has a range gap between the AIM-120D and Russian and Chinese AAM. This suggestion would bridge that gap.

Giving the Super Hornet More Punch: Think SM-6

You'd think an Active Radar ESSM/AMRAAM-ER (if not just bloody Meteor right off the shelf) would be a saner move to get a Phoenix replacement than hanging an SM-6 off a Super Hornet.

 

[t68]

Respectfully, no I was and am not.

I had a relative who worked on portions of the B-1 bomber, the F-111D, and back in the mid-80's the Lockheed portion of the ATF (Advanced Tactical Fighter) which ultimately led to the development and production of the F-22 Raptor. In talks with him about various defence projects he had been a part of, I came to certain conclusions about aspects of US defence development and procurement.

One of the things to keep in mind is that there can be a vast difference between what a service might want, and what it requires in order to function.

With that in mind, consider a timeline of US aircraft and PGM developments and service histories.

The requirement for what became the F-22 came out in 1981, with RFP's in 1986, and YF-22 prototypes in 1990.

The initial programmes which lead to the F-35 Lightning II/JSF kicked off in 1993.

In 1994 initial production examples of the F-22 started being manufactured.

What became the AGM-158 JASSM programme started in 1995.

The F-111 was retired from US service in 1998, without any development programme running for a replacement.

The AGM-154 JSOW also entered service (not development, but service) in 1998.

The SLAM-ER version of the AGM-84 Harpoon reached IOC in 2000.

With all the above listed, there are/were several things which IMO had implications people have overlooked.

The first is regarding the budget. While yes, FB-22 development apart from some studies and drawings might have been terminated in 2006 due to costs, if the USAF had considered the role/capability truly important to the future USAF OrBat, then other programmes would have felt the fall of the budgetary axe.

Relating to the importance, or lack thereof, the USAF retired the F-111 in 1998 after ~31 years of service, without a direct replacement. To me, this speaks volumes and in much the same way as did/does the US and other navies decommissioning and ceasing production of battleships.

The third item is that the US, at the time the decision was made to pull the plug on the FB-22 studies, had just finished getting a 5th gen LO fighter platform into service after 24 years, and had another 5th gen LO platform that had been in the works for 13 years (and would be another 9 years before entering service). What that would strongly suggest to me is that developing other 5th gen LO attack, strike, or bomber platforms would likely take years of development work and associated resources. I can certainly see how the DOD and USAF had other, higher priorities in 2006.

Thanks Tod, puts it into a bit more better perspective

 

[hairyman]

I cant see why the European Meteor is not in the mix, or is it because it is European?

 

[Todjaeger]

I cant see why the European Meteor is not in the mix, or is it because it is European?

Right now it looks like Meteor might be integrated for RAF F-35B's in Block 4 configuration starting around 2024, per a contract with MDBA to develop the capability signed in April 2017.

US weapons are being integrated because that is what the US has and uses, and they are ensuring they can use their own ordnance. If other nations/users which to have other munitions options, then they need to fund the integration and testing.

Having read the original source article about an air-launched SM-6 Dual II, absent reliable sources, I would ignore as the author has gotten a couple of facts wrong, and made many claims that I have not been able to locate supporting information for.

For instance, I have not been able to find anything about an SM-2 Dual II missile, even on the Raytheon site, but there is plenty of sources for the SM-6 Dual I missile. The author also made the claim that the SM-1 was developed into an air-launched version and such development took ~two years, but I have as yet not been able to locate information to support this. Given the deployment history of US air-to-air missiles, it strikes me as odd that anyone would bother trying to get a RIM-66 SM-1 to be able to be air-launched.

 

[SpazSinbad]

You'll read the lah-de-dah soon - transcript Senate Hearing available soon: Estimates Transcript Schedule – Parliament of Australia

Hot off the press is the 28 Feb 2018 day transcript. The MOLAN TEXT Exchage bit could be excerpted here however it is VERY LONG so I'll just attach the two text pages. Meanwhile the entire transcript is:

http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo...te/af06fcdd-cad7-4a4d-8b82-dcc354ae3ae8/0000" (PDF 1.1Mb)

 

[SpazSinbad]

Dont know about the specifics on aircraft warranties as I haven't worked with any aircraft that new but I do know there is on naval ships, major and minor and was even involved in discussions on whether opening FMS equipment for inspection and where required, in store maintenance, would kick off the warranty period or whether it would start upon installation.

When I was young and stupid I had the pleasure of a flight in a, then very new Blackhawk, and we were told that the doors had to be closed in flight as a condition of the still active warranty.

I'm certain I learn something new every day however I have never heard 'warranty' mentioned in regard to the F-35, whilst several component manufacturers and LM have made repairs/changes at their own expense and latest contracts have some 'cost sharing' but read for ourselves:

"...On Tuesday, members of the Senate Armed Services subcommittee on seapower quizzed Navy and Marine Corps aviation leaders about the cost of building and maintaining the F-35. Lawmakers Quiz Military Aviation Leadership About F-35 Costs - USNI News 07mar2018

“Why is the F-35 so expensive to keep flying?” asked Sen. Angus King (I-Maine). A lot of the parts of that aircraft are very expensive. If there a component fails or parts need replacing, the Pentagon has to go to the manufacturer to create new parts. Funding for a components and parts replacement program was included in the pending FY2019 budget, said Vice Adm. Paul Grosklags, the Navy’s commander of Naval Air Systems Command. In a few situations, a part could be covered by a warranty, but Grosklags said for the most part, the Pentagon’s ability to negotiate warranties is limited by congressional language dating back several years...."

 

[SpazSinbad]

Do you mean the Conformal Fuel Tanks?

If so, I think you’ve hit the nail on the head, it will probably depend how long the RAAF keeps the Super Hornet and perhaps Growler in-service. RAAF is keeping their Super Hornets in lockstep with the USN, so if the USN does and we stay in lockstep...

IIRC only the GROWLERS are being LOCKstepped with the USN (because the Supers maybegone). A graphic from the web somewhere about ENHANCED NGJ Growler attached. The single image has been divided for easier reading so now ONLY two JPGs addedView attachment 45749 View attachment 45749 View attachment 45749

 

[SpazSinbad]

An admirable video indeed, except she doesn't really spell out what it isn't. It is clearly not usually due to obvious equipment failure leading to hypoxia, contamination, depressurization etc. It's been real difficult beasty to track down:

Capt. Cliff Blumenberg, head of the Navy’s aerospace medicine branch, told reporters during a September teleconference. “Even the same person in the same aircraft on different days or different flights might experience a physiologic episode at one time and maybe not the next flight. It depends on what you’re doing, how hydrated you are, how well rested you are, what else is going on in your life. Do you have a mild cold that you didn’t recognize?”

From - https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-...ry-tackles-vexing-issue-physiological-episode which tells a bit more detail.

People respond pretty similarly to simple hypoxia or hypercarbia (=high CO2 which puts you to sleep. ) but the response to pressure illness is incredibly variable between individuals, Mountain sickness displays this, and offering a personal example, one person can be near dead from cerebral edema (me) and another perfectly well (wife). So I suspect part of the answer will be related to effects of pressure changes within the brain of some pilots flying high speed jets with pressurized cabins. Could be some interesting science come out of this.

RADM Joyner USN (PHYSIOLOGICAL EPISODE ACTION TEAM LEAD) Testimony to the House Armed Services Committee (HASC); TACTICAL AIR AND LAND FORCES SUBCOMMITTEE; PHYSIOLOGICAL EPISODES WITHIN NAVAL AVIATION 06 Feb 2018

PDF 150Kb : http://docs.house.gov/meetings/as/as25/20180206/106824/hhrg-115-as25-wstate-joyners-20180206.pdf

NASA on these PEs: http://docs.house.gov/meetings/as/as25/20180206/106824/hhrg-115-as25-wstate-craggc-20180206.pdf (84Kb)

USAF PEs: http://docs.house.gov/meetings/as/as25/20180206/106824/hhrg-115-as25-wstate-nowlandm-20180206.pdf (280Kb)

A good place to start to download PDF transcripts for the above hearings - especially the F-35 Program:

http://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=106951

 

[ADMk2]

It has been suggested that the USN should explore integrating the SM-6 missile with the Super Hornet Block III (CFT variant). The argument is that since the retirement of the F-14 and Phoenix missile combination, the USN has a range gap between the AIM-120D and Russian and Chinese AAM. This suggestion would bridge that gap.

Giving the Super Hornet More Punch: Think SM-6

That would be quite a feat with a 6.6m long missile that weighs 3300lbs... There has been some suggestion of turning the ESSM into an air to air missile, probably with the AMRAAM guidance, it’s missile body and rocket motor being a substantial upgrade over AMRAAM would see a massive range, kinematic and NEZ improvement in such a weapon.

SM-6 would see a Super Hornet unlikely to even be able to take off.

 

[Clueless]

Hot off the press is the 28 Feb 2018 day transcript. The MOLAN TEXT Exchage bit could be excerpted here however it is VERY LONG so I'll just attach the two text pages. Meanwhile the entire transcript is:

http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/committees/estimate/af06fcdd-cad7-4a4d-8b82-dcc354ae3ae8/toc_pdf/Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee_2018_02_28_5942.pdf;fileType=application/pdf#search="committees/estimate/af06fcdd-cad7-4a4d-8b82-dcc354ae3ae8/0000" (PDF 1.1Mb)

Thanks for sharing that. It does look like he was giving the RAAF the opportunity to shut it down.