Is Wardy with OCU now? Last I heard he was at 77 - must be FCI-ing. I'm going to be visiting Rooster in Vegas in August - can't wait!
Royal Australian Air Force [RAAF] News, Discussions and Updates
I'm not sure what the 'handling routine' is. One of the three did an ultra slow run followed by a high speed climb which was good. Another did a slow pass with wheels and tailhook down. The three did formation work together and each did some solo work.
Tas
more RAAF C-17s?
The RAAF has now taken delivery of all four C-17s that were ordered (according to wiki the last was in Jan 2008). They really seem to have hit the ground running, so to speak.
I'm wondering whether there have been any recent rumblings inside the RAAF/army for more?
I would expect that funding any new acquisitions would be really hard pressed to get up, given the current federal government's commitment to cutting the budget. And the 'razor gang' possibly even going through the defence budget.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23190502-7583,00.html
rb
The RAAF has now taken delivery of all four C-17s that were ordered (according to wiki the last was in Jan 2008). They really seem to have hit the ground running, so to speak.
I'm wondering whether there have been any recent rumblings inside the RAAF/army for more?
I would expect that funding any new acquisitions would be really hard pressed to get up, given the current federal government's commitment to cutting the budget. And the 'razor gang' possibly even going through the defence budget.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23190502-7583,00.html
rb
Bring it on plane spotters ;-)
The ALQ-218 is the heart of the EA-18G electronic attack capability. The ALQ-99 as fitted to the EA-18G is just the jamming transmitter/exciter component in the pods. The distinctive tail top ALQ-99 receiver component that is fitted to the EF-111 and EA-6 is NOT fitted to the EA-18G.
The receiver and processor element of the EA-18G is all ALQ-218 (wingtip pods, gun port) and F/A-18F B2 legacy receivers (AESA, ALR-67). So if all you are going to do is sling some ALQ-99 pods on an F/A-18F B2 then you will lack the receivers for the all important roles of signal acquisition, parameter measurement, and precision direction-finding/geolocation.
diggumsbang
Member
from the outside the C-17's seem to have fitted in seamlessly into the ADF structure. im sure that the RAAF is stoked with the fact that they were produced on time and on budget and their worth is already been seen. if we were to procure any more how many would we realisticly need? another 3-4?
There is an argument in CDG that we should go to an all C-17 airlift fleet, supported by the highly capable lightweight tactical fixed wing aircraft options (C-27/C-295). Especially since the ALSPO reckon they can convert the C-17 into a very capable high and low speed IFR tanker (fighters and helicopters) by adding on some of those hose/drogue underwing pods. The numbers for such an option would be something like 8-16 C-17s and 12-20 LTFWA and no C-130s.
diggumsbang
Member
that is interesting AGRA especially having the C-17s operating as AAR for helos! realisticly it would be pretty hard to see the C-130J's getting the shove in the next 15years, but if we keep fighting the war on terrorism in places far away from ourselves then the argument for the C-17 will only get stronger. i was pretty amazed at some of the short landings and take offs of the C-17 i have seen on youtube - performed well above my expectations. maybe we could convert some C-130J into AC-130U gunships to support our special forces as well as supplementing our new fleet of Tiger ARH? would definitely consolidate the etho of having a more combined arms group and add some serious firepower to our arsenal
If these two aircraft can meet all of the RAAF's fixed wing transport requirements, along with high and low speed IFR tanker roles, it seems to make sense but I wonder if there is a 'middle' area where the C-17 would be too large and the LTFWA too small.
What percentage of C-130 missions could be picked up by the C-17 at the top end and the C-27 or C-295 at the other? Would there be a case to retain a three aircraft fixed wing transport force, with an additional 4 C-17s replacing the remaining C-130Hs and sufficient LTFWA to replace the Caribous along with some C-130H missions? This would provide a force of approx 8 C-17s, 12 C-130Js and how ever many LTFWA aircraft are needed to meet the remaining fixed wing tactical requirements.
Tas
CDE/Air8000 is holding off on going for additional C-130Js until they see what is happening with the A400M - that's a far more likely and needed capability than extra Js...if it ever gets going! Plus it will come with an organic A2A refuelling capability as well.
There is still a need for a medium/heavy transport in the middle ground, as there are soft fields the C-17 will never get into that the Herc or A400M can, e.g. Op PNG Assist recently.
There may be room for one or two more C-17s to optimise the fleet utilisation, but I can't see any more than that being ordered. The 3rd aircraft arrived at AMB yesterday (11 Feb) and the fourth is due to arrive in march. FOC won't be declared until the sim, hangars, and new 36SQN facilities are complete next year.
Although it is about 2/3s as capable as a C-130J, the C-27J can perform about 90% of the missions currently commonly undertaken by RAAF Hercs.
Magoo (the "plane spotter", apparently!)
Last edited:
Some time ago,there was a talk about a second 24 SH Batch,what happend to the rumour?
I know that the whole SH purchase is now under investigation for alternatives etc.
But would it be possible that the RAAF would go ahead with a 100 JSF purchase (enough for 4 Combat Sqn+1OCU+attrition) and 48 JSF (2 Comabt Sqn of mixed SH and Growler),which would mean an increase of likely 50% in Combat power,and how would it possibly cost? Ive heard the 13 Billion are slated for JSF+3 Billion for 24 SH+ than evtl. lets say 1.5 Bn for a second Batch.
Navor
I know that the whole SH purchase is now under investigation for alternatives etc.
But would it be possible that the RAAF would go ahead with a 100 JSF purchase (enough for 4 Combat Sqn+1OCU+attrition) and 48 JSF (2 Comabt Sqn of mixed SH and Growler),which would mean an increase of likely 50% in Combat power,and how would it possibly cost? Ive heard the 13 Billion are slated for JSF+3 Billion for 24 SH+ than evtl. lets say 1.5 Bn for a second Batch.
Navor
weasel1962
New Member
Re:
Deleted
Deleted
Last edited:
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
The program was to acquire up to 75x JSF's under "phase 2" to replace the Hornets in the operational Sqns, 2OCU, AOSG etc.
The next phase would acquire up to 25x more aircraft to replace the F-111 capability (now F/A-18E/F capability) but not necessarily with the JSF or even a manned tactical fighter...
I think the best bet is STILL the F-35 being acquired in a total of 4x operational Squadrons worth. There has been a bit of talk of expanding RAAF to a 5th operational squadron (which would probably be 6 Sqn) to support the "enhanced land force" better and the Vice Chief of RAAF is talking to Magoo a bit about expanding RAAF's personnel numbers, but I imagine a 5th operational JSF squadron I imagine wouldn't happen until the post 2020 timeframe...
Just to clarify, it's planned that 72 F-35As will be acquired from 2013 to 2018 under Phase 2A & 2B, and then perhaps another 28 in 2019/20 under Phase 2C. IOC of one squadron is scheduled for 2015, and FOC of two or three squadrons in 2017/18 (57 aircraft). F-35A deliveries to the RAAF are tentatively scheduled at four aircraft in 2013, eight in 2014, 15 in 2015, 15 in 2016, 15 in 2017, 15 in 2018, 15 in 2019 and 13 in 2020. Neither the F-111 nor the 'classic' Hornets can go as far as the FOC date, hence the Super Hornet buy.
DCAF's personnel expansion plans only cover the capabilities that are currently in the DCP - another squadron of F-35s (or retained Supers or whatever) would require additional personnel over and above those plans.Aussie Digger said:
Cheers
Magoo
the road runner
Active Member
I am at a loss to understand the training requirements once all the JSF fleet is in service.Dose this mean that our pilots will train on PC-7,then go to Hawk 127,then straight onto a JSF?
OR will the RAAF be recieving a supersonic trainer in the form of a T-50(golden eagle) OR still use the F-18 Superbugs as a trainer for thr JSF?
I would think that the RAAF will need some sort of supersonic trainer,as there seems a bit of a gap from transiting from a HAWK to a JSF.
Would love some info on this as i have been trying to look for this info on the net.Also is there a future need for a supersonic trainer in the RAAF
THANX
MEEP MEEP
OR will the RAAF be recieving a supersonic trainer in the form of a T-50(golden eagle) OR still use the F-18 Superbugs as a trainer for thr JSF?
I would think that the RAAF will need some sort of supersonic trainer,as there seems a bit of a gap from transiting from a HAWK to a JSF.
Would love some info on this as i have been trying to look for this info on the net.Also is there a future need for a supersonic trainer in the RAAF
THANX
MEEP MEEP
I guess that depends on what you consider "training". No doubt the current F/A-18 and F-111 pilots will be ready to move onto JSF, so filling those roles initially would be ok. But for the future pilots I don't see why they couldn't put new pilots into the superbugs initially and then onto JSF (with some remaining in the superbugs so maintain sufficient experience).
Will the JSFs actually be that much more complicated anyway? I was of the understanding that whether a trainer is supersonic is not that big of a deal anyway (I think I read that on here somewhere).
Will the JSFs actually be that much more complicated anyway? I was of the understanding that whether a trainer is supersonic is not that big of a deal anyway (I think I read that on here somewhere).
The Hawks are glassed as Bugs. There's also sim training. I can't see anyone reglassing Hawks as JSF LIF's either.
And why the T-50 anyway? It adds another capability layer which is not justified for RAAF IMO.
And why the T-50 anyway? It adds another capability layer which is not justified for RAAF IMO.
the road runner
Active Member
I was under the impression you had to go from a sub-sonic trainer to a supersonic trainer.well i guess i was wrong thanx for clearing that up,
so our pilots can go from PC-7 to HAWK(also with some time in a simulaor)
then on to JSF is that right?
(the reason i thought a T-50 is cause it is a supersonic trainer and as you can see with my thinking "or lack of" i thought it was a needed capability GF)
Thanx
MEEP MEEP
so our pilots can go from PC-7 to HAWK(also with some time in a simulaor)
then on to JSF is that right?
(the reason i thought a T-50 is cause it is a supersonic trainer and as you can see with my thinking "or lack of" i thought it was a needed capability GF)
Thanx
MEEP MEEP
Last edited:
They go from PC-9 (not PC-7), to Hawk, to F-111 and Hornet now, so why not to JSF in the future? The F-111 is certainly faster and more demanding than the F-35 ever will be.
The PC-9s will be long gone by the time JSF enters service anyway, and will likely be replaced either with something a little more capable such as the T-6B, PC-21 or M-346, or alternatively, not replaced at all with a more advanced primary trainer with EFIS such as a Diamond, Cirrus or CT-4F coming through from below.
The Hawks are due to receive a mid life upgrade around the time the JSF arrives, and this will likely include a revised cockpit layout sympathetic to that of the F-35.
Magoo
I would have thought that their age would be too far gone for reglassing by then... What project number is that coming under?
Air 5438 I think. There'll be various phases of that project as it develops and funding is released.
Funding is in 2013-2015, with in-service of 2017-2019 I think.
Cheers