SpazSinbad
Active Member
Thanks. I'll check out TINDAL overhead via GaaGaaGoggle. North is always top of screen unless otherwise stated.
Last edited:
Royal Australian Air Force [RAAF] News, Discussions and Updates
I had assumed that the logic for the current shelters was to protect against blast from the sides as they are significantly strengthened by concrete and large earthworks. If they take a direct hit from above there is little that can be done apart from huge bunkers which are economically unviable.
Can someone who knows comment please?
Can someone who knows comment please?
Gomer
New Member
The bunkers are OLA's with a shelter. They are designed to contain an explosion. Any high arc frags will still get in.
A hardened shelter would have to be climate controlled so very expensive.
Spaz, the area in the Photo is the lower right (SE).
SpazSinbad
Active Member
Gomer thanks - yes isn't Google Earth great. Back in my dream time apart from being an RAN FAA jet pilot trained basic/advanced by the RAAF in the Winjeel/Vampire era, I had the 'good fortune' to be posted for about six months in the USofA learning how to be a P.I. Photo Interpreter at Lowry AFB, CO over winter 1972/73 (with a bunch of RAAF would be P.I.s mostly for the new F-111 capacity but they never talked about it). Sadly our mutual security clearances were downgraded just at the start of this course after we had been given an overview of what was to come. It turned into kindergarten after LABOR raided ASIO HQ - the course stopped for a few days whilst the USAF mulled what to do, they then seriously downgraded the course and apologized whilst we all were told to stay and get on with it. Luckily peering at stereo photos never gets old and some of us learnt how to do this without a stereoscope (but your eyes hurt). Anyway then satellites with cameras making photos that could 'read a newspaper from orbit' {ha} were in play. Nowadays we have Googie Erf and slant views and all kinds of stuff for free. OMG! 
One nice benefit was spending a month at NAS Miramar before returning to Oz. I was not allowed to fly or be a passenger in anything under pain of death from my CO back Oz (no authorization / indemnity) but to be in their O Club was amazing with all the bods back from Vietnam (March/April 1973). It was also good to smell the sea again after the winter snow months in the Rocky Mountain High of Denver. These overhead photos are my go to format for checking things out to realise how NAS Nowra has changed over the years (just for helos). It is unrecognizable to me except for the runways and topography.
One nice benefit was spending a month at NAS Miramar before returning to Oz. I was not allowed to fly or be a passenger in anything under pain of death from my CO back Oz (no authorization / indemnity) but to be in their O Club was amazing with all the bods back from Vietnam (March/April 1973). It was also good to smell the sea again after the winter snow months in the Rocky Mountain High of Denver. These overhead photos are my go to format for checking things out to realise how NAS Nowra has changed over the years (just for helos). It is unrecognizable to me except for the runways and topography.
t68
Well-Known Member
Got this of another forum in reference to the Growler incident , no link to the Estimates Committee Hansard found. I had a look but no luck
SeNator PATRICK: I just have questions in relation to the Growler accident that took place at Nellis Air Force base in the US. Are you able to assist me?
Air Marshal Davies: Yes, I can.
SeNator PATRICK: Can you just advise who carried out the investigation into the cause of the engine failure and subsequent fire on board the Growler throughout that incident?
Air Marshal Davies: The investigating team was a combination of the engine manufacturer of Defence Science and Technology Group and our own flying safety or DASR organisation, so it was a combined effort.
SeNator PATRICK: What role did the US Navy have in the investigation?
Air Marshal Davies: The US Navy were, I will say, parallel to the investigation. They were certainly involved and certainly very interested since they fly the same aircraft. It was our aircraft so our lead. We did use them at times for information flow and for any sort of experience they had with this type of accident.
SeNator PATRICK: Is the investigation complete?
Air Marshal Davies: The investigation is complete, as far as the accident itself is concerned—that is, the aircraft, the crew and the ability to determine what the cause was. However, the investigation is continuing to try and determine whether there are any other engines that we have not yet inspected that have the potential to have the same affect and indeed to get to a root cause from a manufacturing point of view.
SeNator PATRICK: To be clear, you have got a finding in respect of the aircraft that was involved in the incident but you are looking across more broadly other aircraft in the RAAF inventory?
Air Marshal Davies: Not exactly. It is an engine problem. It was a particular component issue within that single engine. What we are doing now is going through all of the engines that are in our Rhinos and Growlers to make sure the same issue is not present there.
SeNator PATRICK: What component was it and what went wrong?
Air Marshal Davies: A turbine disc was the cause. What we are trying to work on now with the manufacturer is how that might have occurred. That is the ongoing investigation.
SeNator PATRICK: And I presume, from that, there may be some remedial action that will flow across the Air Force inventory?
Air Marshal Davies: The remedial action is known and is largely complete. At the moment, we have cleared a large number of engines. We are clearing about two a week at this point to make sure they are not in any way faulty.
SeNator PATRICK: What is the status of the aircraft, the extent of the damage? Has it been written off?
Air Marshal Davies: We are just about to complete. In fact, I understand that it is complete, as far as the investigating team is concerned, and we will be providing that advice to the Minister for Defence very shortly.
SeNator PATRICK: So we don't know whether that will return to service? Is that a decision based on the cost?
Air Marshal Davies: In part the decision is based on cost, but not a pure dollar amount; it is about the amount it would take to make the aircraft flyable again. The damage is severe. I would think that it would be a reasonably big ask to return it to fly.
SeNator PATRICK: So what happens in the instance where you have lost an aircraft? I appreciate you not saying that definitively at this point. How do you then restore the capability that the RAAF wanted in terms of numbers? Did you end up procuring another aircraft?
Air Marshal Davies: SeNator, that question is fair but a little premature at this point. We'll complete the investigation and we'll make our recommendation. Then my simple response to you is that we will go through a normal capability acquisition process to determine the need and the cost when that would occur. We have that work to come yet.
SeNator PATRICK: I meant generally. If you have an aircraft that ends up being written off for some reason, in the general case, how do you restore the numbers? How do you deal with that?
Air Marshal Davies: In an aircraft acquisition, there will be an attrition aircraft consideration. That would mean that, at some point during the aircraft acquisition, we would have a number that we would put to government, and that is agreed or not, as to the number of attrition aircraft that we would buy. We purchased 12 Growler aircraft. As to the question about attrition and whether we would buy a new one or not, it's still to go through the normal acquisition process.
SeNator PATRICK: So no self-insured arrangement?
Air Marshal Davies: I'm not the insurance expert here. I don't know what the process is, but we are investigating whether there are any insurance opportunities to be had.
SeNator PATRICK: So there seriously might be some?
Air Marshal Davies: I don't know the answer. We're asking the question as whether there are any, but I don't know the answer to that question.
SeNator PATRICK: Finally, is it possible to provide the committee with the report when it's completed or is it classified?
Air Marshal Davies: I'm not being evasive here. I have no other purpose. I don't know because I haven't seen the full report yet, but I will endeavour to make available to the committee any parts of that report, with the maximum intent possible.
SeNator PATRICK: That would be appreciated, obviously when it's concluded. Thank you very much.
With thanks to Blofie2 via OTR
SeNator PATRICK: I just have questions in relation to the Growler accident that took place at Nellis Air Force base in the US. Are you able to assist me?
Air Marshal Davies: Yes, I can.
SeNator PATRICK: Can you just advise who carried out the investigation into the cause of the engine failure and subsequent fire on board the Growler throughout that incident?
Air Marshal Davies: The investigating team was a combination of the engine manufacturer of Defence Science and Technology Group and our own flying safety or DASR organisation, so it was a combined effort.
SeNator PATRICK: What role did the US Navy have in the investigation?
Air Marshal Davies: The US Navy were, I will say, parallel to the investigation. They were certainly involved and certainly very interested since they fly the same aircraft. It was our aircraft so our lead. We did use them at times for information flow and for any sort of experience they had with this type of accident.
SeNator PATRICK: Is the investigation complete?
Air Marshal Davies: The investigation is complete, as far as the accident itself is concerned—that is, the aircraft, the crew and the ability to determine what the cause was. However, the investigation is continuing to try and determine whether there are any other engines that we have not yet inspected that have the potential to have the same affect and indeed to get to a root cause from a manufacturing point of view.
SeNator PATRICK: To be clear, you have got a finding in respect of the aircraft that was involved in the incident but you are looking across more broadly other aircraft in the RAAF inventory?
Air Marshal Davies: Not exactly. It is an engine problem. It was a particular component issue within that single engine. What we are doing now is going through all of the engines that are in our Rhinos and Growlers to make sure the same issue is not present there.
SeNator PATRICK: What component was it and what went wrong?
Air Marshal Davies: A turbine disc was the cause. What we are trying to work on now with the manufacturer is how that might have occurred. That is the ongoing investigation.
SeNator PATRICK: And I presume, from that, there may be some remedial action that will flow across the Air Force inventory?
Air Marshal Davies: The remedial action is known and is largely complete. At the moment, we have cleared a large number of engines. We are clearing about two a week at this point to make sure they are not in any way faulty.
SeNator PATRICK: What is the status of the aircraft, the extent of the damage? Has it been written off?
Air Marshal Davies: We are just about to complete. In fact, I understand that it is complete, as far as the investigating team is concerned, and we will be providing that advice to the Minister for Defence very shortly.
SeNator PATRICK: So we don't know whether that will return to service? Is that a decision based on the cost?
Air Marshal Davies: In part the decision is based on cost, but not a pure dollar amount; it is about the amount it would take to make the aircraft flyable again. The damage is severe. I would think that it would be a reasonably big ask to return it to fly.
SeNator PATRICK: So what happens in the instance where you have lost an aircraft? I appreciate you not saying that definitively at this point. How do you then restore the capability that the RAAF wanted in terms of numbers? Did you end up procuring another aircraft?
Air Marshal Davies: SeNator, that question is fair but a little premature at this point. We'll complete the investigation and we'll make our recommendation. Then my simple response to you is that we will go through a normal capability acquisition process to determine the need and the cost when that would occur. We have that work to come yet.
SeNator PATRICK: I meant generally. If you have an aircraft that ends up being written off for some reason, in the general case, how do you restore the numbers? How do you deal with that?
Air Marshal Davies: In an aircraft acquisition, there will be an attrition aircraft consideration. That would mean that, at some point during the aircraft acquisition, we would have a number that we would put to government, and that is agreed or not, as to the number of attrition aircraft that we would buy. We purchased 12 Growler aircraft. As to the question about attrition and whether we would buy a new one or not, it's still to go through the normal acquisition process.
SeNator PATRICK: So no self-insured arrangement?
Air Marshal Davies: I'm not the insurance expert here. I don't know what the process is, but we are investigating whether there are any insurance opportunities to be had.
SeNator PATRICK: So there seriously might be some?
Air Marshal Davies: I don't know the answer. We're asking the question as whether there are any, but I don't know the answer to that question.
SeNator PATRICK: Finally, is it possible to provide the committee with the report when it's completed or is it classified?
Air Marshal Davies: I'm not being evasive here. I have no other purpose. I don't know because I haven't seen the full report yet, but I will endeavour to make available to the committee any parts of that report, with the maximum intent possible.
SeNator PATRICK: That would be appreciated, obviously when it's concluded. Thank you very much.
With thanks to Blofie2 via OTR
t68
Well-Known Member
The Senator did in a roundabout way, I imagine RAAF will give advice on that out come. Using one of the pre-wired aircraft would still leave a a gap in capability in force structure, but that single aircraft can do both roles.
Even if we ordered new build attrition aircraft today it still take a couple of years pending if the US gives us slots again. they are expecting IOC/FOC for F35A in 2023 5 years away my guess 6 pre-wired will be brought up to Growler configuration and the case for remaining 28 buy in brought forward. seems the only logical financial choice to me. But the other aspect of this is what is the attrition numbers built into the F35A buy in?
I comes down to costs in the end.
They will probably be able to salvage quite a lot of the gear from the old Growler. Really they probably just need a new airframe.
What would that be worth?
The flyaway cost of an EA-18G is probably around $80 million.
We could cover that by flogging off a few more Classic hornets to the Canadians
I’d be surprised if Air Force will convert more (than maybe one) to growlers. It is an impressive capability but the RAAF knew that before they bought it. The original number purchased would have been to fulfil a direct capability requirement - e.g to sustain x number of jamming caps for x hours per day for x days, with attrition factored as the AM said (likely multiple different scenarios).
The only way Air Force change the numbers upwards by 50% is either if the strategic situation changes or the airframe proves it’s utility so much that it is impossible to ignore. Maybe the RAN and Army or ADF as a whole turn around and say the capability is indispensable and there might be grounds to buy more. Otherwise to remove 25% of the SH fleet will damage the capability 1Sqn can provide.
SpazSinbad
Active Member
A tin roof would do that would it not? Modern 'all 'lectric' aircraft need their bits protected from the weather as much as possible (USN/USMC aircraft would get their canopies closed ASAP) as well as some prevailing wind protection (especially on a ship flat deck - yeah right). Apparently the F-35 has good drainage (for corrosion protection) which is much better than the problematic F-22 corrosion prevention (another story altogether). The F-35 was designed from the getgo with rugged stealth to enable use at sea but still the cockpit needs protection and the canopy closed does that except then there is the SUN - so tin roof it is.
Canada Increases Planned Buy of Used Australian F-18s from 18 to 25
(Source: Forecast International; issued June 19, 2018)
OTTAWA --- Canada has increased the number of used Australian F-18 Hornet jets it plans to buy from 18 to 25, the Ottawa Citizen reports. The additional seven jets will be used for spare parts, according to a Department of National Defence spokesman. It is unclear if the aircraft will be flown to Canada or shipped.
Negotiations for the 25 aircraft are still underway, so the total cost of the procurement has not been finalized. However, Ottawa has allocated up to CAD500 million ($377 million) for the purchase.
The deal will require approval from the United States due to the transfer of American technology, which is not expected to be an issue. A DND official said he expects a deal in place by the end of the year, with deliveries beginning in summer 2019. The government originally planned for the aircraft to arrive in January 2019.
At one point, Canada had planned to buy 18 new Super Hornets from Boeing, but that deal fell through over a separate commercial aircraft trade dispute.
(Source: Forecast International; issued June 19, 2018)
OTTAWA --- Canada has increased the number of used Australian F-18 Hornet jets it plans to buy from 18 to 25, the Ottawa Citizen reports. The additional seven jets will be used for spare parts, according to a Department of National Defence spokesman. It is unclear if the aircraft will be flown to Canada or shipped.
Negotiations for the 25 aircraft are still underway, so the total cost of the procurement has not been finalized. However, Ottawa has allocated up to CAD500 million ($377 million) for the purchase.
The deal will require approval from the United States due to the transfer of American technology, which is not expected to be an issue. A DND official said he expects a deal in place by the end of the year, with deliveries beginning in summer 2019. The government originally planned for the aircraft to arrive in January 2019.
At one point, Canada had planned to buy 18 new Super Hornets from Boeing, but that deal fell through over a separate commercial aircraft trade dispute.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
Thanks Canucks, $377m, that could buy Australia 4 F-35s, or could be put towards replacing our lost Growler, or the extra P-8As down the track, far better ways to spend it.Canada Increases Planned Buy of Used Australian F-18s from 18 to 25
(Source: Forecast International; issued June 19, 2018)
OTTAWA --- Canada has increased the number of used Australian F-18 Hornet jets it plans to buy from 18 to 25, the Ottawa Citizen reports. The additional seven jets will be used for spare parts, according to a Department of National Defence spokesman. It is unclear if the aircraft will be flown to Canada or shipped.
Negotiations for the 25 aircraft are still underway, so the total cost of the procurement has not been finalized. However, Ottawa has allocated up to CAD500 million ($377 million) for the purchase.
The deal will require approval from the United States due to the transfer of American technology, which is not expected to be an issue. A DND official said he expects a deal in place by the end of the year, with deliveries beginning in summer 2019. The government originally planned for the aircraft to arrive in January 2019.
At one point, Canada had planned to buy 18 new Super Hornets from Boeing, but that deal fell through over a separate commercial aircraft trade dispute.
Unfortunately, it goes straight into consolidated revenue. It doesn't mean extra money for defence.
t68
Well-Known Member
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
I am sure the Australian government will have some excellent cancellation fees in the purchase agreement in the unlikely event we have a change in government in 2019. The Conservatives will terminate the buy in a NY minute if they win (as they should, complete frigging waste of money)!
That costing would be about right considering that they are of similar flyaway cost to the P-8A and some expensive infrastructure will be required. That $7 billion probably is the highest cost and will most likely be the all up including infrastructure, training, manuals, maintenance etc. Undoubtedly the actual cost could be somewhat less.