Royal Australian Air Force [RAAF] News, Discussions and Updates
They should be here at some point, not sure how long they normally take to show up after a session though.
That's also how I see it. I wouldn't be surprised if the Ghost Bat development accelerates sharply.
It's also hard to appreciate just how significant the cyber threats are if you don't have to deal with it. And the cyber and physical worlds are becoming increasingly intertwined, and that includes a lot of civilian infrastructure that would be critical to support any conflict.
WaveWalker
Member
I never said that they fold in flight, and with respect, I work on a small team in that is introducing this type into a major airline fleet in flight operations so I do understand how these things work!
You only have half the picture. They didn’t introduce the fold to increase lift as such. The MTOW the aircraft is nominally the same as the -300ER. The point is efficiency as compared fuel burn per seat pax nautical mile (CASM) of the A350-1000.
A greater aspect ratio gives the aircraft greater lift and and lower drag which lowers fuel burn. The higher aspect ratio reduces wing tip vortices (drag) and allows for a more efficient wing that reduces induced drag along the whole span of the wing. The lower drag is the point of the wing, like a glider.
The fold system is automatic with a manual backup. In airline operations it will extend at a given TLP (thrust lever position) on takeoff and will retract as the aircraft reduces speed below 80kt.
Again with respect, your final point doesn’t make sense. They introduced a fold to fit in the 65m standard gate size. But why not make the wing span 65m then? The ZFW (zero fuel weight) of the aircraft is lighter and it has the same MTOW, so it doesn’t need more lift as you assert. It needs more efficiency to get the costs (mainly fuel) as required by the business case. That is achieved by lower drag and therefore less thrust.
Except as you state along with many articles I find the width and design of the wings are rant amount to the efficiency gained in it, so if you throw on the standard 65m wingspan to remain with code E airports then many of those benefits disappear hence why they put the folding wingtips. Gain the efficiency associated with the design and width of them while being able to remain in use in all its current airports.
For the GB this would not in the slightest at all be required. You are comparing a large international aircraft that operates from space constrained airports to an aircraft with less then 1/9th of its wingspan operating from military airfields where space isn't at such a premium. Quite literally you are comparing apples and oranges and are advocating/pushing for a possible point of failure on an aircraft which if needs wider different designed wings why not just make them wider and leave out the fold?
You seem like a smart guy so I can respect your knowledge but use some common sense, you are over thinking a very simple matter. That's it.
For the same reason that we shouldn’t read to much into “the death of the Tank” or “Tank battleship moment” narrative, I would argue we can’t read too much into the survivability of MALE UAVs from this conflict.
Russia has not demonstrated high levels of competence in combining Air/Land integration, and yet footage of TB2’s plinking Russian AFVs still seems to have dried up, at least compared to the early days.
Your point stands however, that the ADF took too long to bring this capability into service.
cdxbow
Well-Known Member
Article by Peter Jennings from ASPI which talks a bit about the MQ9 cancellation Defence must secure northern Australia amid gravest risk since WWII | The Strategist (aspistrategist.org.au) Summary - 'mind bogglingly stupid'. One of his major points is that is was a powerful capability that could be added within a few years and that the ADF has been planning such an acquisition for years.
Australia needs programs that can deliver capability quickly and the MQ9 fitted that need. They may well be planning to use the Ghost Bat in that role but who knows how long it will be before it is ready. The only clue to when that might happen is the 2020 Force Structure Plan that seems to suggest around the late 20s to early 30s. Also $1.6 billion is small potatoes compared to a lot of other programs. We blew more than 3 times that on the Attack submarine program.
Jennings states that while the MQ-9B was included in a list of potential sacrifices put to government by the services, no-one in Defence thought it would be touched. If so the airforce must be ruing putting it on the list.
Tas
The story is going around that Cyber and Space are the next big thing and will be funded out of the existing budget. I big chunk of the money is coming from SEA 1000 and more from MQ-9. I am getting very concerned about Land 400.
I hope we are not seeing the 50s/ 60s stupidity of missiles will replace everything that is now obsolete because of missiles (replace missiles with hypersonics, cyber, UCAVs and space).
I hope we are not seeing the 50s/ 60s stupidity of missiles will replace everything that is now obsolete because of missiles (replace missiles with hypersonics, cyber, UCAVs and space).
Rock the kasbah
Active Member
I am pretty much an outsider , as in no knowledge of military goods
But this is mind boggling .
I hope an earlier comment wrt the ghost bat is true
What with the current situation in Ukraine and an election soon got me fxxxxx
Re Ghost bay/Sea Guardian: it’s relatively clear from the airframe designs there is no way that MQ-9B and MQ-28 have the same mission roles.
Look at the shape of the two vehicles. The long, thin (high aspect ratio) wing on MQ-9 is optimised for efficient med-high altitude, slow speed, long endurance tasking and has sensor fit (including EO/IR ball - look at the position) optimised for this.
MQ-28 has a very different profile with at least a degree of RCS shaping, with much lower aspect ratio wings and a jet engine that should allow for performance close enough to fast jets. This linked ASPI article details some of the potential.
Because of this I don’t see any read across that cancellation of one is endorsement of the other…
Look at the shape of the two vehicles. The long, thin (high aspect ratio) wing on MQ-9 is optimised for efficient med-high altitude, slow speed, long endurance tasking and has sensor fit (including EO/IR ball - look at the position) optimised for this.
MQ-28 has a very different profile with at least a degree of RCS shaping, with much lower aspect ratio wings and a jet engine that should allow for performance close enough to fast jets. This linked ASPI article details some of the potential.
Because of this I don’t see any read across that cancellation of one is endorsement of the other…
I think both Defence and the countless ‘experts’ in the media often forget that deterrence requires a unique balance between the secret and hidden and the highly visible.
We have and continue to invest in our hidden capabilities - yet we neglect our visible capabilities which are absolutely crucial to firstly ‘Shape’ and ‘Deter’, but also, ‘respond’.
In our maritime dominated region, that means we need more ships and aircraft maintaining a *constant* and *highly visible* presence throughout our entire region, well beyond our own shores.
I hope I'm right about this, but I really do think the MQ-28 can and will fill a lot of roles far quicker than many expect.
The development of the MQ-28, particularly now they've got some foundational aspects worked out (taking, level flight, landing, and presumably comms and navigation), there is no reason that you cannot compress development time astronomically with resources. From this point on it should be much less like traditional aircraft development and much more like software development:
- A lot of the development IS software
- You can accept failures (big test range + no pilot) to enable rapid development
- Interchangeable modules for different mission sets mean completely capable of parallel development
- The ability to accept greater risks allows development teams to be rapidly grown with people not used to working with high levels of risk aversion
The development of the MQ-28, particularly now they've got some foundational aspects worked out (taking, level flight, landing, and presumably comms and navigation), there is no reason that you cannot compress development time astronomically with resources. From this point on it should be much less like traditional aircraft development and much more like software development:
- A lot of the development IS software
- You can accept failures (big test range + no pilot) to enable rapid development
- Interchangeable modules for different mission sets mean completely capable of parallel development
- The ability to accept greater risks allows development teams to be rapidly grown with people not used to working with high levels of risk aversion
Not against technology
Just mindful its just one part of the mix going forward.
At the end of the day when our space astronauts have been vaporised and someone has unplugged the net; when our ships are sunk and the airforce has been grounded it comes down yet again to that digger with dirty boots and faded cams actually delivering the goods.
Again, not against technology just keeping it all in perspective.
Keeping to the RAAF thread
The MQ-9B was a good choice for the RAAF.
A proven and available platform to provide much needed capability in the very near future.
A ridiculous sacrifice.
Its attributes out weigh it's limitations.
Regards S
Suspect the USAF wanting to exit the program may have been a significant factor. Our MQ9 s coming on line just as the USAF is looking to unload and wind down the program. I thought predator C avenger might have been the way forward but that doesn’t appear to have legs and there doesn’t appear to be any equivalent replacement for what is one of the most numerous planes in the USAF inventory. I think 300 plus In service.
It would of been great to get this capability but there must be a plan in place to replace the capability with either a cheaper or more capable option. What that is is yet to be seen. I can’t imagine it was a required capability only 2 years ago and now that requirement has evaporated?
taskandpurpose.com
www.defensenews.com
the irony at this point is they are considered unsurvivable against Russian and Chinese air defence but these seem to be over rated in the current environment in the Ukraine. I guess operating at altitude over the ocean would a different targeting environment.
It would of been great to get this capability but there must be a plan in place to replace the capability with either a cheaper or more capable option. What that is is yet to be seen. I can’t imagine it was a required capability only 2 years ago and now that requirement has evaporated?
The Air Force wants to kill a drone that ground commanders say they can’t live without
The Air Force says the MQ-9 Reaper won't survive a hot war, but airpower experts argue the drone is still extremely useful.
taskandpurpose.com
Get ready for another fight over the future of the MQ-9 Reaper
“There is no need to buy more aircraft," acting Air Force Secretary John Roth wrote in a letter to a senator, recently seen by Defense News.
www.defensenews.com
the irony at this point is they are considered unsurvivable against Russian and Chinese air defence but these seem to be over rated in the current environment in the Ukraine. I guess operating at altitude over the ocean would a different targeting environment.
It looks like the RAAF Shornets and F-35 will be getting the JASSM-ER earlier than anticipated.
The RAN Hobart and ANZAC class will also be getting the NSM.
The RAN Hobart and ANZAC class will also be getting the NSM.
Last edited:
So interesting, think it had been picked for some time that the NSM would replace harpoon for the RAN, especially after the USN announcements and decisions some time ago, so a bit of a no brainer.
Correct me if I am wrong, but the JASSM-ER is external only on the F-35 ? Don't get me wrong, no complaints and certainly has its place and very good uses, and the potential for XR in the future.
What interests me, possibly, is that we are still involved in the integration of the JSM into the F-35 as an internal carry, again a bit of a no brainer, but also the use of NSM in conjunction with NASAMS II systems we have on the way, the Kongsberg NSM CDS is basically an extension of the NASAMS system, opens up a lot of possible options, just saying
What’s the wait on the f35 to take JASSM-ER?
Systems integration and certification, supply and maintenance chains, training, CONOPS, force structure, and that's just in the US, then you have to flow that onto the ADF and RAAF, RAN and possibly the Army as well !
Just really gets me how people think we just get these things and all of a sudden we have thousands of them ready to go a week later !! Does the general public actually know what MOTS actually is ?
Because they seem to think off the shelf means we just go in with a few trucks, load up and sweet the ADF is ready to go !! Yep lets just order a few thousand of these, a couple of hundred of those, let's throw in a few hundred long range missiles to strike China and we have it covered, so simple, why did they not think of it before !!
And of course lets just add in that the manufacturers of these missiles and systems just have "thousands" laying around for us to come in and put into our shopping cart, oh yeah and the US and other countries have 10's of thousands sitting in a warehouse to spare for Australia to come and grab !!
Please give me strength !!