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

Z

zhaktronz

Member
ADMk2 said:
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.
Click to expand...
There was an anti-radiation version of SM-1 on the phantom, so... AMRAAM seeker on an SM-2 is probably possible.....

But yeah unless you're looking for extreme anti-bomber anti-awacs anti-MPA range just use an ESSM
 
A

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
zhaktronz said:
There was an anti-radiation version of SM-1 on the phantom, so... AMRAAM seeker on an SM-2 is probably possible.....

But yeah unless you're looking for extreme anti-bomber anti-awacs anti-MPA range just use an ESSM
Click to expand...
SM-1 was also only 4.7m long and weighed 1500lbs, quite a difference to the SM-6,,,
 
J

jack412

Active Member
A quick question for a guy who asked me on another forum about what was the french stuff..

There was an issue with procurement, where the french blackmailed us to buy a product or they wouldn't supply spare parts to another. I think helo?

During the Vietnam war, someone denied us taking their products there. It was euro, was it the mirage or something else?

The yanks weren't happy with Thales.au and a navy contract 5-10 years ago?. They had possible access to their stuff issues.


PM me if you don't want to mess the flow of this thread, thanks
 
Todjaeger

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
jack412 said:
A quick question for a guy who asked me on another forum about what was the french stuff..

There was an issue with procurement, where the french blackmailed us to buy a product or they wouldn't supply spare parts to another. I think helo?

During the Vietnam war, someone denied us taking their products there. It was euro, was it the mirage or something else?

The yanks weren't happy with Thales.au and a navy contract 5-10 years ago?. They had possible access to their stuff issues.


PM me if you don't want to mess the flow of this thread, thanks
Click to expand...
The issue during the Vietnam deployment was that France denied Australia permission and/or support to deploy the Mirage to Vietnam. One result of that is that when the Mirages came up for replacement, Australia looked elsewhere for a replacement fighter.

The US also has issue with a number of foreign nations/manufacturers having access to US defence IP, which can make systems integration even more problematic than it normally is, with France being one of the erstwhile allies that the US has issues with from a security and manufacturing perspective.
 
Takao

Takao

The Bunker Group
jack412 said:
A quick question for a guy who asked me on another forum about what was the french stuff..

There was an issue with procurement, where the french blackmailed us to buy a product or they wouldn't supply spare parts to another. I think helo?

During the Vietnam war, someone denied us taking their products there. It was euro, was it the mirage or something else?

The yanks weren't happy with Thales.au and a navy contract 5-10 years ago?. They had possible access to their stuff issues.


PM me if you don't want to mess the flow of this thread, thanks
Click to expand...
To add to Todjaeger - ammunition supply for the 84mm Carl Gustav was also constrained during the Vietnam War for political reasons; although that doesn't seem to have hurt that procurement option.
 
t68

t68

Well-Known Member
Todjaeger said:
The issue during the Vietnam deployment was that France denied Australia permission and/or support to deploy the Mirage to Vietnam. One result of that is that when the Mirages came up for replacement, Australia looked elsewhere for a replacement fighter.
Click to expand...
What was the French objection to the RAAF using Mirage in Vietnam, after all the French used just about everyone else aircraft when it suited them. But then it's one way to restrict your future trade deals.
 
M

Milne Bay

Active Member
t68 said:
What was the French objection to the RAAF using Mirage in Vietnam, after all the French used just about everyone else aircraft when it suited them. But then it's one way to restrict your future trade deals.
Click to expand...
Yes quite rich from the French after their own involvement in Vietnam.
I recall seeing film of the French using F-4U Corsairs during the Dien Bien Phu battle.
MB
 
M

MARKMILES77

Active Member
Defence Update

Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, a manufacturer of jet-powered tactical unmanned aerial drone systems, will soon offer its Mako militarized, combat unmanned aerial vehicles systems for export, following approval of such export by the U.S. State Department to ‘certain European and Asia Pacific region countries’ (believed to be the UK and Australia). Kratos UTAP-22 Mako provides fighter-like performance and is designed to function as a wingman to manned aircraft, as a force multiplier in contested airspace, or be deployed independently or in groups of UAS.
Click to expand...
Not sure this has been discussed here.
Would give the RAAF a cutting edge capability which magnifies the performance of the SuperHornets and F35s
 
Joe Black

Joe Black

Active Member
Hey, just wondering if RAAF would go down the same path and upgrade the Rhinos too. I recall folks here mentioned that RAAF is in lock step with the USN on the Rhinos/Growlers. Would make sense to do the upgrade too right?
 
S

Stampede

Well-Known Member
A question re the F35.

I wonder if the price between the A and C model had being closer would the RAAF have had a preference for the longer range F35C.
Just like the Australia's classic Hornet, it would see its service life out as a conventional land based platform with no intention for sea based operation.
Maybe a thought when a decision is made re the future of the Super Hornet.

Thoughts S
 
John Fedup

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Really can't see the price ever getting close enough to justify the C over the A. Better corrosion resistance, tougher landing gear, more surface control area, and some extra range are nice features but how how many more millions per plane are you willing to pay? I think the more interesting debate is a mixture of As and Bs.
 
t68

t68

Well-Known Member
John Fedup said:
Really can't see the price ever getting close enough to justify the C over the A. Better corrosion resistance, tougher landing gear, more surface control area, and some extra range are nice features but how how many more millions per plane are you willing to pay? I think the more interesting debate is a mixture of As and Bs.
Click to expand...

I think out of all three variants the A is a no brainier for the RAAF for majority of the fleet with its lighter and higher max g rating and internal gun leaving available a hard point available for other weapons or fuel.

Unlike the RN/RAF and the QECV they are going to need attrition airframes over the life of QECV and they also have Typhoon, the main question would be what replaces Typhoon for the UK in the future.

As for the B in RAAF service I can see some gains even without using them from a light carrier "proximity means capability" doesn't always mean they have to be tied to a ship what the USMC call Expeditionary Airfield Capability or FARP, but with so few aircraft(28) would it be justified capability that also means which service is responsible for building Army engineers or a new capability within RAAF?

Prepping The Ground - Second Line of Defense
 
S

Stampede

Well-Known Member
t68 said:
I'm still mystified on why 10 and not 12?
Click to expand...


12 would seem the traditional number, but if I recall the final call was based on one; cost, and two, that it was believed the final number chosen would provide sufficient flight hours for tasks demanded.......................................Which I think is political speak for cost.

I have heard that down the track if the aircraft meets expectations then further aircraft will be acquired. I understand there is much optimism with those involved with the project both for its future, and also potential in other roles.
The challenge for future purchase's may lie with availability. If future sales are not found byLeonardo,the Spartan may end up with a rather short production life.
Hopefully not the case
.
If still available, fingers crossed for an increase to the fleet as I believe it is a good fit for a balanced RAAF.


Regards S
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top