Royal Australian Air Force [RAAF] News, Discussions and Updates
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Unfortunately the original (and best) RAN thread has been closed... permanently (not happy Jan!!)
In its place is the new RAN 2.0 thread (again, not happy Jan!!).
You can of course still access, read and use the original thread as a historical reference.
Cheers,
PS, did I say not happy? Still not happy!
Mark_Evans
Member
Thanks. Found it
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
1. This Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0 thread is a continuation of the older thread (starting 20 Nov 2021). The older RAN thread at 1,500+ pages is a bit too long and further discussions should continue here. Some prior posts before this was moved here from the RAN thread to...
www.defencetalk.com
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Some people wonder why us old timers here on DT have zero respect for Defence reporting in the main stream media, and even less respect for the so called journalists who write the crap.
Check out this article from The Age/SMH:
www.theage.com.au
Specifically this quote:
“There are fighter jets on the market with much longer range, such as the fourth-generation F-22s – about 3000 kilometres – but their lack of stealth would be a major trade-off in a modern war.”
What the fu*k! What the fu*k! Seriously???
The F-22 is “on the market” it’s “fourth generation” and it “lacks stealth”, but has a long range!!
Again I say, what the fu*k!!!
I’m going to email this moron and give him both barrels!!!
PS:
By the way, there are also a fair number of other inaccurate and false statements too, the F-22 statement being the dumbest.
Check out this article from The Age/SMH:
Is Australia ready for war? The air force’s biggest problem with China is how to get there
With a combat range of just 1000 kilometres, can the multibillion-dollar Joint Strike Fighter be the right fit for the Royal Australian Air Force?
Specifically this quote:
“There are fighter jets on the market with much longer range, such as the fourth-generation F-22s – about 3000 kilometres – but their lack of stealth would be a major trade-off in a modern war.”
What the fu*k! What the fu*k! Seriously???
The F-22 is “on the market” it’s “fourth generation” and it “lacks stealth”, but has a long range!!
Again I say, what the fu*k!!!
I’m going to email this moron and give him both barrels!!!
PS:
By the way, there are also a fair number of other inaccurate and false statements too, the F-22 statement being the dumbest.
Last edited:
the road runner
Active Member
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Mate,
Haven’t read the Army one yet (and the RAN one is yet to be published).
I read the RAAF one much earlier today, and all I’ve seen is RED ever since!!!
I think we need a new thread that is permanently pinned at the top, with a title something like this:
“Everything you ever wanted to know about dumb, stupid and completely inaccurate Defence reporting in Oz”
Boagrius
Well-Known Member
Looks like they managed to get every one of those claims wrong. IIRC the F22 only outperforms the F35 in the range/radius department if it uses EFTs, and I'm not sure whether they would be practical on operational missions or if they are typically reserved for mundane ferry flights. If the Raptor elects to use its supercruising capability for a significant length of time, the balance tilts ever further in favour of the Lightning. The funny part is that the Raptor's more limited reach seems to be one of the main motivators behind replacing it with NGAD next decade...
You will have to let us know if you get a reply .... and what was said.Some people wonder why us old timers here on DT have zero respect for Defence reporting in the main stream media, and even less respect for the so called journalists who write the crap.
Check out this article from The Age/SMH:
Is Australia ready for war? The air force’s biggest problem with China is how to get there
With a combat range of just 1000 kilometres, can the multibillion-dollar Joint Strike Fighter be the right fit for the Royal Australian Air Force?
Specifically this quote:
“There are fighter jets on the market with much longer range, such as the fourth-generation F-22s – about 3000 kilometres – but their lack of stealth would be a major trade-off in a modern war.”
What the fu*k! What the fu*k! Seriously???
The F-22 is “on the market” it’s “fourth generation” and it “lacks stealth”, but has a long range!!
Again I say, what the fu*k!!!
I’m going to email this moron and give him both barrels!!!
PS:
By the way, there are also a fair number of other inaccurate and false statements too, the F-22 statement being the dumbest.
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Rock the kasbah
Active Member
upon recent reflection I have found these
www.airforce.gov.au
.
33 of them.
Advanced trainers ??? Well played RAAF well played
Then I found this
www.australiandefence.com.au
My Questions are
1. what am I looking for in the competitors ?
and
2. Is it a fifty fifty split between the primary role and secondary role ?
Laymens terms please.
Hawk 127 | Royal Australian Air Force
The Hawk 127 lead-in fighter prepares qualified Air Force pilots for operational conversion to F/A-18A and F/A-18B Hornets and F/A-18F Super Hornets.
33 of them.
Advanced trainers ??? Well played RAAF well played
Then I found this
Companies line up for potential Hawk replacement opportunity - Australian Defence Magazine
The Commonwealth’s Request For Information for its proposed Lead In Fighter Trainer (LIFT) program to be delivered under Air 6002 Phase 1 closed on Friday, eliciting responses from at least three comp...
www.australiandefence.com.au
My Questions are
1. what am I looking for in the competitors ?
and
2. Is it a fifty fifty split between the primary role and secondary role ?
Laymens terms please.
cdxbow
Well-Known Member
I was struck by this comment in the article relating to the Hawk Mk.127 " the average airframe age, in terms of flying hours, is only around one-third of its verified fatigue life." Is there some deficiency in the Hawk Mk.127 that makes the RAAF want to get rid of them early?upon recent reflection I have found these
.Hawk 127 | Royal Australian Air Force
The Hawk 127 lead-in fighter prepares qualified Air Force pilots for operational conversion to F/A-18A and F/A-18B Hornets and F/A-18F Super Hornets.
33 of them.
Advanced trainers ??? Well played RAAF well played
Then I found this
Companies line up for potential Hawk replacement opportunity - Australian Defence Magazine
The Commonwealth’s Request For Information for its proposed Lead In Fighter Trainer (LIFT) program to be delivered under Air 6002 Phase 1 closed on Friday, eliciting responses from at least three comp...
My Questions are
1. what am I looking for in the competitors ?
and
2. Is it a fifty fifty split between the primary role and secondary role ?
Laymens terms please.
Fatigue life is a measure of the integrity of the airframe itself. An aircraft may well have been flown to church Sundays by a very careful single owner for 30 years and barely have a scratch on the duco, much less metal fatigue endangering a wing spar but still have 30 year old avionics and perished wiring insulation (and so on)
Deficiency is age and the ability to still use the aircraft to safely train pilots, first as jet pilots, then as rookie fighter pilots, using up to date systems.
Yes, if the airframes are safe BAE might be able to rebuild them. Or we get something new. Cost benefit analysis seems to me to be something that Defence will pursue
oldsig
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
The Hawk 127s were delivered with the same Cockpit layout as the classic Hornets, the RAAF may be looking to upgrade to a Trainer with something akin to the F-35A and the baseline Hawk design is now approaching its 50th Birthday.
John Newman
The Bunker Group
This might answer some questions (ADBR, June 2020):
RFI released for RAAF Hawk 127 LIF replacement | ADBR
The Commonwealth has released a Request for Information to industry for technologies that could lead to the replacement of the RAAF’s BAE Hawk 127 lead in fighter capability. The RFI…
adbr.com.au
Specifically this paragraph:
“The Hawk is powered by the Rolls-Royce Turbomeca Adour Mk 871 which, in recent years has become increasingly difficult to support and has experienced cracking in the low bypass turbine. Engine problems and a persistent wing fatigue issue have led to a couple of groundings of the fleet, the last one in 2019.”
*Engine issues
*Wing fatigue issues (what is it with training aircraft? From memory the aircraft the Hawk replaced, MB-326H, suffered fatigue issues that forced earlier retirement too).
But let’s not forget the aircraft have now been in service for 20+ years too, time and technology moves on.
Hawk is/was a great aircraft when we had a 4th Gen air force, now we are well on our way to being a 5th Gen air force.
Could we spend buckets of money to modernise all of the avionics, etc? Sure, but why do that on a 20+ year old airframe?
My money is on a version of the Boeing T-7A replacing the Hawk 127 fleet.
cdxbow
Well-Known Member
Thanks John. If there are issues supporting the engine along with unanticipated fatigue in the wings then that makes sense. I am comforted that my tax dollars are being used responsibly and will sleep well tonight. You don't think Korea's T50 would get a look in?This might answer some questions (ADBR, June 2020):
RFI released for RAAF Hawk 127 LIF replacement | ADBR
The Commonwealth has released a Request for Information to industry for technologies that could lead to the replacement of the RAAF’s BAE Hawk 127 lead in fighter capability. The RFI…
Specifically this paragraph:
“The Hawk is powered by the Rolls-Royce Turbomeca Adour Mk 871 which, in recent years has become increasingly difficult to support and has experienced cracking in the low bypass turbine. Engine problems and a persistent wing fatigue issue have led to a couple of groundings of the fleet, the last one in 2019.”
*Engine issues
*Wing fatigue issues (what is it with training aircraft? From memory the aircraft the Hawk replaced, MB-326H, suffered fatigue issues that forced earlier retirement too).
But let’s not forget the aircraft have now been in service for 20+ years too, time and technology moves on.
Hawk is/was a great aircraft when we had a 4th Gen air force, now we are well on our way to being a 5th Gen air force.
Could we spend buckets of money to modernise all of the avionics, etc? Sure, but why do that on a 20+ year old airframe?
My money is on a version of the Boeing T-7A replacing the Hawk 127 fleet.
Most training jets have a secondary role as a light attack craft, however I think in the future their may be a role for twin seat trainers acting as controllers for autonomous craft given we may have a significant fleet of drones in the future.
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Just to add to my post above.
It’s to be expected that BAE will do all it can to ‘talk up’ the Hawk 127, there are big bucks to be made in fleet sustainment contracts and future upgrades.
No different to Airbus ‘talking up’ the Tiger ARH or the MRH90 fleet too, again, lots of sustainment dollars, etc.
But there comes a time when the cost of ownership, either through lack of availability or excessive sustainment costs, etc, forces you to make a decision.
Sort of reminds me of the time many many years ago my ex-wife (horrible bit*h!), had an old Toyota Corolla, she loved it, I hated it.
Regular as clockwork, every month something would go wrong needing a trip to the mechanic, the last straw for me was the blown head gasket repair that cost $500+, which was a $hit load back then.
Finally got her to agree to an upgrade, bought a brand new Mazda 121 bubble, the monthly car loan repayment was less than the monthly cost of keeping the old Corolla on the road, and the Mazda never let us down.
Sometimes you just have to bite the Bullet and move on.
It’s to be expected that BAE will do all it can to ‘talk up’ the Hawk 127, there are big bucks to be made in fleet sustainment contracts and future upgrades.
No different to Airbus ‘talking up’ the Tiger ARH or the MRH90 fleet too, again, lots of sustainment dollars, etc.
But there comes a time when the cost of ownership, either through lack of availability or excessive sustainment costs, etc, forces you to make a decision.
Sort of reminds me of the time many many years ago my ex-wife (horrible bit*h!), had an old Toyota Corolla, she loved it, I hated it.
Regular as clockwork, every month something would go wrong needing a trip to the mechanic, the last straw for me was the blown head gasket repair that cost $500+, which was a $hit load back then.
Finally got her to agree to an upgrade, bought a brand new Mazda 121 bubble, the monthly car loan repayment was less than the monthly cost of keeping the old Corolla on the road, and the Mazda never let us down.
Sometimes you just have to bite the Bullet and move on.
John Newman
The Bunker Group
T-50? No.
It’s a 20yr old design, why go down that path?
T-7A is a much much newer design, and it will be used to get USAF student pilots into USAF F-35A.
Not being anti South Korea (the Army is going down the SK path for SPGs and possibly IFVs).
Assuming T-7A ticks the boxes for the RAAF requirement, then for a whole ranges of reasons, especially commonality, sustainment, future upgrades, etc, I’d stick with an aircraft our major military partner uses, and considering most of our aircraft are US anyway.
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Yes training jets often have a secondary light attack role, etc, great for training, but I’d be worried if we had to go down to that last line of defence in a potential real future conflict.
Two seat trainers as controllers for autonomous (loyal wingman) aircraft? No, can’t see it (not disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing, ok?).
I can’t see that trainer aircraft will have the ‘legs’ to transit to an area of operation, or be able to stay on station for a reasonable time either.
Apart from being controlled, or instructed, by a land based facility (with Satellite connection), I would imagine that a future swarm of Loyal Wingman type aircraft are more likely to have local ‘controllers’ such as E-7A, P-8A, KC-30A, MC-55A standing off at distance, those aircraft have both long range and the ability to stay on station too.
We could possibly see MQ-4C acting as a relay for those ‘controller’ aircraft or land based controllers.
Two seat trainers? Not so much.
The Hawks were a 20 year old design when the RAAF got them, The P8 is based on a design that has evolved from the original B737 of the 1960's. How old the basic airframe design is, is overshadowed by what is fitted to and into that that basic airframe.