Royal Australian Air Force [RAAF] News, Discussions and Updates
The aircraft won’t physically enter Ukraine, Russia or Belarus, no…
But it’s sensor systems sure will, as confirmed by the Defence Minister in an interview yesterday…
It's a wonder that they didn't call it a battleship or a tank.
Mark_Evans
Member
Well, I would say two crews for starters. 2*2 flight crew and 2*10 moon crew. Maintenance & logistics personnel. Deployment management & liaison staff, translators, and the list quickly builds up.
Likely comes from experience in Iraq/Syria in which the E-7 was in high demand over any other similar asset. If they are deploying that many personnel then they are likely expecting a lot of flight time while there.
Are there any links to articles detailing how the E7 was used and why it was popular compared to other similar air assets ? Google search doesn't show anything, and there's usually some very useful, but difficult to find articles showing information which I notice only the more knowledgeable seem to know about.
To give you an example of what I mean, this is a Rand report on Airpower in Libyan Civil War....not exactly easy to google and find unless you know a bit more specifics...I think someone here ages ago, or another military forum, posted this
chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR600/RR676/RAND_RR676.pdf
The Air Force’s upcoming radar aircraft is already a combat veteran
“Those guys [fighter crews] need that information that we provide to be able to execute the mission.”
taskandpurpose.com
The E-3 Sentry Vs the E-7 Wedgetail
The US Air Force has recently announced the Boeing E-7 Wedgetail as a replacement for the venerable Boeing E-3 Sentry. Combat Aircraft Journal compares the two aircraft
The E3's are really old. There are specific issues with the Engines and the airframe that hurt availability, reliability, of the entire global fleet. They are cannibalizing's planes now to keep them flying, which is highly not sustainable. Parts inventories are essentially depleted, of basically everything.
When they are are flying, they can do the job generally, but the E7 is a much more modern platform, much great availability and serviceability (like 1 E7 would be able to do more work than all of NATO's European E3's). Cheaper to operate, and has a few more modern features and technologies. Particularly with complex environments and places where low observables, jamming etc are being used on both sides.
Deploying the E7 to Europe is most likely required if any Western Fighter jets were to go to Ukraine. E7 should be able to do its mission operating from NATO airspace just fine. It is designed to operate at a significant distance behind the lines. The E3's being forced to fly high intensity operations, are wearing out faster, and the war in ukraine is technologically moving quickly, with drones, jammers, complex air defence.
F18 are apparently still a possibility.
F-18s for Ukraine? Australia still avoids answering this question
bulgarianmilitary.com
I bet there is some interest in the RAAF MC-55 deploying to Europe as well.
RAAF to receive first MC-55A at end of 2023; IOC in 2024
Canberra aims to complete flight testing of its Gulfstream/L3Harris MC-55A Peregrine electronic warfare aircraft in mid-2023.
www.flightglobal.com
I rarely post so forgive me.
Being a senior technician working on petrol stations people just don't understand the logistics to get fuel in their vehicles it takes hundreds of people to keep one petrol station going.
Same goes for aircraft, and they are much much more maintenance demanding. I would think 100 personal would be a skeleton crew (although if more jets were there, they could support other aircraft)
Cheers Chris
Only need to look at RAAF personnel numbers and aircraft numbers. circa 20,000 all up including reserves, just under 300 odd aircraft, about 66 persons per an aircraft. Now yes all those aircraft are different in levels of flight hours, complexity, maintenance requirements etc but at the same time not every person in the RAAF is a grease monkey or a fly boy. E-7 for all intents is still just a 737, Qantas for the several hundred aircraft it maintains still only has an engineering and maintenance staff of about 3,300 or you can take operation Okra as a baseline 8 x Super Hornets, 1 x KC-30 MRRT and 1 x - E-7 Wedgetail with a total force of 400 which was not only personnel to maintain and fly but feed, provide care, security etc. Operating out of a base in the EU they likely wont need to do all or at least not to full extent that they did in the UAE. 100 personnel for a single aircraft one as simple as a 737 to maintain is over kill (Should note what was mentioned years ago during operation Okra the E-7 became a dream to maintain as the parts/items that needed the most work were/are heavily established in the civilian market and can be sourced in almost every country, They could get parts locally with out having to wait for supplies from Australia or the US or where ever)
Government directs defence to extract it’s collective digits and provide ‘MQ-28A Ghost Bat Block 2 “options” ASAP…
www.australiandefence.com.au
First time I think I’ve heard of a Block 2 variant… I wonder if the initial air-vehicles we have seen have been scaled airframes? Block 2 is ‘full size’ and ‘full capability’ airframes?
Maybe we’ll find out some day…
Government accelerates Ghost Bat program - Australian Defence Magazine
The Albanese government has directed Defence to deliver options to accelerate development of the Boeing Australia MQ-28A Ghost Bat autonomous air vehicle “without delay”.
www.australiandefence.com.au
First time I think I’ve heard of a Block 2 variant… I wonder if the initial air-vehicles we have seen have been scaled airframes? Block 2 is ‘full size’ and ‘full capability’ airframes?
Maybe we’ll find out some day…
Is there a possibility that the U.S would make such a request it has its own program going with the MQ-25
Boeing's MQ-28 'Ghost Bat' drone spotted in the US (interestingengineering.com)
Boeing's MQ-28 'Ghost Bat' drone spotted in the US (interestingengineering.com)
Hard to take it seriously when they can't even get the caption right on the photo. They've got the aircraft designators ass about.
So you don’t know what rate of effort they will fly, what the C2 arrangements are, what base support functions or security force footprint they need, yet you’re still confident it’s overkill?
No I went and made a guesstimate based upon how many people Qantas requires to maintain similar aircraft and from previous RAAF deployments arguably to a location that would require is to field more support personnel then a similar deployment to a western nation. I also previously stated that with the size of the deployment that I expect that it is to allow for heavy usage. So yes I am quite confident in my assumption that this is an over kill in manpower to allow for heavy usage of this particular asset.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #9,196
AND
Attempting to compare the personnel requirements for a Defence deployment of RAAF aviation assets with the personnel a civilian, commercial airline uses to support their fleet of airliners is really an "apples to oranges" type comparison. Or perhaps pears.
Focusing on 'just' the maintenance personnel requirements for the aircraft whilst ignoring the very significant differences in the avionics, is going to lead to a rather distorted view of what the requirements are.
For instance, the flight crew of a commercial B737-xxx is normally two AFAIK and the E-7 has the same flight crew requirement, there are also 10 mission crew consoles to enable the NG MESA radar to be utilized and provide the EW&C functions of an AEW&C aircraft. This means that a full E-7 Wedgetail mission crew is going to be around a dozen personnel. I would expect that for a single aircraft deployment of an asset like an E-7, there would likely be at least two full mission crews at a minimum. TBH a requirement of four mission crews would not particularly surprise me either. IIRC the max mission endurance for an E-7 is in the 15 to 18 hour range. A pilot and co-pilot, even with autopilot and switching off to get rest cannot be realistically expected to continue safe flight operations over such a long stretch, and in commercial aviation a flight of such length would require and onboard relief flight crew to take over after a certain point. I would expect something similar to happen in the RAAF once a flight mission reached a certain length. So with a likely minimum personnel requirement of two full crews, that is ~24 personnel out of 100, possibly rising to nearly 50 personnel if four full crews are sent. Then there would of course be maintenance personnel to support the aircraft, and significantly the avionics. I suspect that the maintenance skills required to maintain the aircraft (engines, airframe, etc.) are quite similar between a commercial B737 and E-7, but the skills and requirements to support the avionics are likely to be different with the E-7 having a greater demand for skills and personnel with those skills. I also suspect that the RAAF would not be comfortable relying upon the technical skills and staff of their hosts to maintain such sensitive pieces of kit like the MESA, the consoles and the onboard aircraft network.
I would also suspect that the RAAF would want to include at least some security personnel to protect the aircraft and it's sensitive bits from prying eyes and those who might wish to take too close a look.
When one starts to really think about the range of skills and personnel capabilities the RAAF would need to bring with them on such a deployment, one can quickly notice the numbers start to add up. If the deployment was something much shorter and simpler, like a there and back again C-130 airlift, relatively few personnel would be needed. However, to deploy and then sustain operations of a high value ISR asset is quite a bit different.
Operating a E7 from Germany, to watch all of the stuff that is happening in Ukraine and also operate with NATO capabilities. Its a big job.
You would imagine the RAAF might send quite a few operational people over and quite a few to liaise, look and analyze things. There is command and planning. Its quite an interesting space, and one I imagine the RAAF is quite interested in. I would imagine the RAAF would be interested in sitting people in other aspects of what NATO is doing over there. I imagine there would be be quite a bit of interest from RAAF personnel as well.
The E3's aren't getting any younger, any more reliable, or any more capable. I imagine their operational tempo will be quiet high, and Ukraine is taking them to the limit. I would fully believe that Australia may send over an additional E7 perhaps next year, and other support for Ukraine/NATO of this type. MC-55 would be an ideal fit. Growlers aren't out of the impossible range either. It would give Australia a chance to show off its combined EW capabilities.
There is no reason to do this with a skeleton level of man power. You would want a decent sized footprint there. Also, bear in mind at some point we had most of our C17's in Germany doing airlift for Ukraine equipment and aid. We are regularly send hundreds of millions to there in equipment and aid.
Particularly with the discussions where countries like Australia sit in NATO, and with Australia's security contribution and capabilities to the EU playing into the EU FTA discussion.
Send everything. Really razzle dazzle them.
This also sends a message to the Russians. If far off countries like Australia are going balls deep, propaganda that the west lacks commitment, starts to seem very hollow. Also that forces are coming for so far away, that they aren't fighting the resources of NATO, but of everyone.
You would imagine the RAAF might send quite a few operational people over and quite a few to liaise, look and analyze things. There is command and planning. Its quite an interesting space, and one I imagine the RAAF is quite interested in. I would imagine the RAAF would be interested in sitting people in other aspects of what NATO is doing over there. I imagine there would be be quite a bit of interest from RAAF personnel as well.
The E3's aren't getting any younger, any more reliable, or any more capable. I imagine their operational tempo will be quiet high, and Ukraine is taking them to the limit. I would fully believe that Australia may send over an additional E7 perhaps next year, and other support for Ukraine/NATO of this type. MC-55 would be an ideal fit. Growlers aren't out of the impossible range either. It would give Australia a chance to show off its combined EW capabilities.
There is no reason to do this with a skeleton level of man power. You would want a decent sized footprint there. Also, bear in mind at some point we had most of our C17's in Germany doing airlift for Ukraine equipment and aid. We are regularly send hundreds of millions to there in equipment and aid.
Particularly with the discussions where countries like Australia sit in NATO, and with Australia's security contribution and capabilities to the EU playing into the EU FTA discussion.
Send everything. Really razzle dazzle them.
This also sends a message to the Russians. If far off countries like Australia are going balls deep, propaganda that the west lacks commitment, starts to seem very hollow. Also that forces are coming for so far away, that they aren't fighting the resources of NATO, but of everyone.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
Up to 6 months deployment to Western Europe, got no idea how the RAAF is going to find enough volunteers for that one
. 6 months in a benign environment with all of Europe at your doorstep on your days off, what an awful way to serve your country.That we have heard so little about the development of the Ghost Bat is a good thing. Media loves to report programs that are running behind schedule, are under performing or over budget. That nothing beyond official press releases is being reported suggests that everything is proceeding on schedule and will perhaps even be accelerated.Government directs defence to extract it’s collective digits and provide ‘MQ-28A Ghost Bat Block 2 “options” ASAP…
Government accelerates Ghost Bat program - Australian Defence Magazine
The Albanese government has directed Defence to deliver options to accelerate development of the Boeing Australia MQ-28A Ghost Bat autonomous air vehicle “without delay”.
First time I think I’ve heard of a Block 2 variant… I wonder if the initial air-vehicles we have seen have been scaled airframes? Block 2 is ‘full size’ and ‘full capability’ airframes?
Maybe we’ll find out some day…
I also think Ghost Bat would be considered a black project, or at least a darker shade of grey. The full capability of the system is probably something that they would want to keep under wraps particularly in regards to the AI capability.
When you put it that way it is an extremely rare opportunity for Australia to test itself against a peer rival. We should indeed treat this as an opportunity to test the full capability of the E7 and other EW systems in a real war environment.
You have to wonder if Australia will be involved in directing Ukrainian air assets or restricting themselves to just monitoring.