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

SpazSinbad

SpazSinbad

Active Member
RobOTIC POKing at holes in another aircraft is just plain creepy but hey - it works! :)

World's first automatic air-to-air refuelling contact with large aircraft receiver

 
R

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
It has been raised on the RNZAF thread about time running out for further P-8 orders, according to the 2016 DWP Australia has a req for a further Tranche of 3 Aircraft by the late 2020s to bring the total to 15. Unless iv'e missed an annoucement they have not been ordered. This Aircraft procurement may have to be brought forward or we may miss the Boat.
 
weegee

weegee

Active Member
Redlands18 said:
Only used a ATM-84 unarmed version though. You still wouldn't want to be hit by one though, certainly ruin your day and capable of putting a ship out of action
Click to expand...
I was thinking that the impact was a little unimpressive! That makes a lot more sense now thanks for the info.
 
recce.k1

recce.k1

Well-Known Member
Redlands18 said:
Only used a ATM-84 unarmed version though. You still wouldn't want to be hit by one though, certainly ruin your day and capable of putting a ship out of action
Click to expand...
I wonder what the pros and cons would be to fit a Phalanx to a SINKEX vessel and see how it performs (including dealing with saturation attacks), ditto how the attacking missiles perform?

Granted "safety" would be the #1 key (remote control of the CIWS to activate/deactivate (and over-see) it and perhaps a self-destruct mechanism if warranted and/or for when the vessel sinks (it would have to go down with the vessel and not be retrieved - too unsafe etc).

Naturally any attacking aircraft would be well outside the CIWS's range (and that's where the remote activation/deactivation comes into it).

OTOH would the USN gain much knowing how a US manufactured missile performs against a US manufactured counter measure system and vice-versa?

Would there be any environmental/hazard concerns with any unspent ammo rounds (assuming they survived a self-destruct process)?
 
t68

t68

Well-Known Member
recce.k1 said:
I wonder what the pros and cons would be to fit a Phalanx to a SINKEX vessel and see how it performs (including dealing with saturation attacks), ditto how the attacking missiles perform?

Granted "safety" would be the #1 key (remote control of the CIWS to activate/deactivate (and over-see) it and perhaps a self-destruct mechanism if warranted and/or for when the vessel sinks (it would have to go down with the vessel and not be retrieved - too unsafe etc).

Naturally any attacking aircraft would be well outside the CIWS's range (and that's where the remote activation/deactivation comes into it).

OTOH would the USN gain much knowing how a US manufactured missile performs against a US manufactured counter measure system and vice-versa?

Would there be any environmental/hazard concerns with any unspent ammo rounds (assuming they survived a self-destruct process)?
Click to expand...

I imagine that their would land based testing of some description, but what your suggesting would also have to have some sort of functioning radar to receive data cues for the CWIS and a power source
 
ngatimozart

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
recce.k1 said:
I wonder what the pros and cons would be to fit a Phalanx to a SINKEX vessel and see how it performs (including dealing with saturation attacks), ditto how the attacking missiles perform?

Granted "safety" would be the #1 key (remote control of the CIWS to activate/deactivate (and over-see) it and perhaps a self-destruct mechanism if warranted and/or for when the vessel sinks (it would have to go down with the vessel and not be retrieved - too unsafe etc).

Naturally any attacking aircraft would be well outside the CIWS's range (and that's where the remote activation/deactivation comes into it).

OTOH would the USN gain much knowing how a US manufactured missile performs against a US manufactured counter measure system and vice-versa?

Would there be any environmental/hazard concerns with any unspent ammo rounds (assuming they survived a self-destruct process)?
Click to expand...
Could mount it on a barge close by, that way reduces the risk it being deep sixed.
 
recce.k1

recce.k1

Well-Known Member
P

pussertas

Active Member
SERA Selected for Australian Defence Forces Pilot Training

(Source: ASTi; issued July 24, 2018)

HERNDON, VA. --- Advanced Simulation Technology inc. (ASTi) will provide its Simulated Environment for Realistic ATC (SERA) product for the AIR 5428 Pilot Training System developed by Lockheed Martin, as part of a contract expected to exceed US $1 million over a five-month period.

The AIR 5428 program delivers an integrated training solution tailored for all future pilots of the Royal Australian Air Force, Royal Australian Navy and the Australian Army. To support these training solutions, the latest SERA developments provide users with diverse capabilities such as:
-- Transitioning to an IFR flight plan in the middle of a VFR flight
-- Implementing vectoring to/from practice areas and adding practice area traffic
-- Creating traffic patterns
-- Adding and configuring repeatable runway incursion incidents in the scenario
-- Performing military high key/low key style approaches and touch-and-go landings
-- Configuring custom settings for military traffic

New features also include enhanced CASA phraseology. Automatic DAFIF data imports synchronize SERA with the simulator, providing up-to-date procedures and air spaces. These utilities allow program engineers to test AI behaviors and responses for an entire flight. Additionally, the tools can confirm proper operation before and after SERA software updates.
 
S

StobieWan

Super Moderator
Staff member
recce.k1 said:
I wonder what the pros and cons would be to fit a Phalanx to a SINKEX vessel and see how it performs (including dealing with saturation attacks), ditto how the attacking missiles perform?

Granted "safety" would be the #1 key (remote control of the CIWS to activate/deactivate (and over-see) it and perhaps a self-destruct mechanism if warranted and/or for when the vessel sinks (it would have to go down with the vessel and not be retrieved - too unsafe etc).

Naturally any attacking aircraft would be well outside the CIWS's range (and that's where the remote activation/deactivation comes into it).

OTOH would the USN gain much knowing how a US manufactured missile performs against a US manufactured counter measure system and vice-versa?

Would there be any environmental/hazard concerns with any unspent ammo rounds (assuming they survived a self-destruct process)?
Click to expand...

The USN has a self defence test ship for that sort of thing - usually remote controlled and towing a barge but you get the idea:

Self Defense Test Ship - Wikipedia
 
H

hauritz

Well-Known Member
Conspiracy hat time.

I was reading this story concerning the German's not wanting the F-35.

Is Germany Getting Ready to Dump the F-35?

Ok ... nothing new there. That the German government doesn't want the F-35 isn't exactly news ... but what interested me is that there is a NATO nuclear sharing arrangement that allows Germany to operate the B61 nuclear Gravity bomb provided by the US to host nations. These weapons would be made available by the US in the event of a conflict.

I can't help but wonder if a similar ... perhaps even secret arrangement may exist between Australia and the US.
 
ngatimozart

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Maybe, but probably not. When that agreement was put in place, the Germans, US and NATO had a collective nightmare of the Soviets and Warsaw Pact pouring a tank army or two through the Fulda Gap. If they had managed a breakthrough there, the Soviets mightn't stopped until the reached the English Channel and Atlantic Ocean.
 
Todjaeger

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
ngatimozart said:
Maybe, but probably not. When that agreement was put in place, the Germans, US and NATO had a collective nightmare of the Soviets and Warsaw Pact pouring a tank army or two through the Fulda Gap. If they had managed a breakthrough there, the Soviets mightn't stopped until the reached the English Channel and Atlantic Ocean.
Click to expand...
I would consider that very unlikely, AFAIK the US does not maintain any munitions stockpile in Australia, never mind a depot for nuclear weapons.

The NATO nuclear weapons sharing agreement IIRC was that in the event of a war that would involve a nuclear exchange, US nuclear warheads stored in facilities under US control in NATO countries could be released for use by NATO members against Soviet/Warsaw Pact forces/nations.

In order for the US to 'share' nuclear weaponry with Australia, those warheads would need to be gotten to Australian forces, and the Australian kit (and personnel) would need to be able to employ them. If RAAF Hornets lack the appropriate interface to arm a B61 bomb, and/or RAAF pilots/WSO are not trained in how to set, arm and release a B61... An issue in any of the three areas would make Australian use of US nuclear weaponry problematic.
 
S

swerve

Super Moderator
hauritz said:
Conspiracy hat time.

I was reading this story concerning the German's not wanting the F-35.

Is Germany Getting Ready to Dump the F-35?

Ok ... nothing new there. That the German government doesn't want the F-35 isn't exactly news ... but what interested me is that there is a NATO nuclear sharing arrangement that allows Germany to operate the B61 nuclear Gravity bomb provided by the US to host nations. These weapons would be made available by the US in the event of a conflict.

I can't help but wonder if a similar ... perhaps even secret arrangement may exist between Australia and the US.
Click to expand...
The agreements covering dual-key NATO nukes were always public AFAIK. As far back as I remember (i.e. the late 1960s) they were a matter of public record. I've never heard of any hints that there were ever any secret deals with any other countries.

Remember the context, as described by Todjaeger. It's not exactly comparable with Australia's situation. And think on this: what good is a secret deterrent?
 
John Fedup

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
What good is a secret deterrent, none at all as Dr. StrangeLove pointed out to the Russian ambassador regarding the “thorium G doomsday weapon” in the movie with Peter Sellers.:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top