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

W

WaveWalker

Member
The A330 is about a 40 year old design. It doesn’t have excess power over what it needs to run the aircraft’s systems. As with all Airbus aircraft it has the bare minimum to meet regulatory requirements, this being one of the ways to keep the cost/operating cost of the aircraft to a minimum.
The 330 has 2 engine driven generators. That’s it. Lose one and the aircraft is already shedding cabin systems even with the APU generator operating.

The 787 has 4 VFSG’s as it has more systems electrically powered compared to earlier a/c and also has to meet the new EDTO design rules that earlier a/c didn’t need to.

There is little excess generating power on either of these aircraft as they come out of the factory.
 
StingrayOZ

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
Both the e7 and p8 are 737 based which is one of the most common commercial platforms in the world. They can operate from many small airfields in the pacific where 737 is the largest commercial plane they fly. Air new Guinea, Fiji air, don't fly a340s or 767s. There are no parts for these planes all over the world. There is for 737. It's big enough, yet small enough. Big enough for enough crew for long missions, complex missions. Small enough to operate from tiny airfields.

Having the p8 and e7 based off basically the same plane is super advantageous. The e7 is one of the more successful Aussie projects.
 
H

hauritz

Well-Known Member
Bob53 said:
A short Video of the Rapid Dragon Concept. I think this is a better idea that flying a HIMARs to an outpost on a C130. It just seems a lot a lower risk and way less logistics aNov the aircraft doesn’t need a runway.


its from this article Japan Eyes Turning C-2 Cargo Jets Into Standoff Missile Carriers
Click to expand...
I think all options should be explored for deploying these missiles. I would add Arsenal ships to the list of options. Perhaps even just setting them up on ships of opportunity such as container ships.
maritime-executive.com

How Container Ships Could Provide Naval Capabilities

The U.S. Navy should pursue commercial containerships and compatible containerized mission systems. These ships and systems will allow the U.S. Navy t...
maritime-executive.com maritime-executive.com
 
FormerDirtDart

FormerDirtDart

Well-Known Member
hauritz said:
I think all options should be explored for deploying these missiles. I would add Arsenal ships to the list of options. Perhaps even just setting them up on ships of opportunity such as container ships.
maritime-executive.com

How Container Ships Could Provide Naval Capabilities

The U.S. Navy should pursue commercial containerships and compatible containerized mission systems. These ships and systems will allow the U.S. Navy t...
maritime-executive.com maritime-executive.com
Click to expand...
I feel that the large containerships as suggested are an excessive option. There is simply little utility in looking at vessel of such large capacity. Smaller ships along the lines of the Royal Navy' Fleet Auxiliary Point-class Ro/Ro sealift shops have a much greater utility. Ample upper deck space containerized weapons and plenty of vehicle/modular space on lower decks. The US Navy's adaption of the MV Ocean Trader and the Royal Navy's consideration of the type's conversion for the Littoral Strike Ships highlights the vessel types possible utility.

Edit: I just realized I put a rather "navy" post in the RAAF thread

Opps
 
Last edited:
OldTex

OldTex

Well-Known Member
Richo99 said:
Definetly the Goldy, and if I can work out how to attach some pics from my phone (!!), I'll share.
Click to expand...
Why would the RAAF practice low level flying along the Brisbane River for an airshow at the Gold Coast. The original photo was taken from the apartments on the former Evans Deakin Kangaroo Point shipyard looking towards Garden Point. This strongly suggests Riverfire practice.
 
A

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Albanese Government invests in air and missile defence systems

Sounds as if we’ll soon hear who is getting the MRGBAD contract too… You’d have to imagine that L-M with Patriot / THAAD (or maybe Patriot fired from THAAD launchers) - would be in the box seat, now…
Release details
Release type
Joint media release
Related ministers and contacts
The Hon Richard Marles MP
Deputy Prime Minister
Minister for Defence
Media contact
[email protected]
02 6277 7800
The Hon Pat Conroy MP
Minister for Defence Industry
Minister for International Development and the Pacific
Media contact
[email protected]
(02) 6277 7840
General enquiries
[email protected]
Release content
29 AUGUST 2023
The Albanese Government is delivering two key air and missile defence capability projects, as it gets on with the job of implementing the recommendations of the Defence Strategic Review.
The Review makes clear that an enhanced, all-domain integrated air and missile defence capability is critical in the face of Australia’s evolving strategic circumstances.
As a part of its response, the Government has committed $765 million to deliver the Joint Air Battle Management System. This is the second tranche of what is expected to be a multibillion dollar program.
The Joint Air Battle Management System will support an enhanced, integrated and coordinated air and missile defence capability across the Australian Defence Force (ADF) and national infrastructure. It will provide greater situational awareness of advanced air and missile threats and increased interoperability with international partners.
Lockheed Martin Australia has been selected as the Strategic Partner for this project and will collaborate with other Australian defence industry partners, presenting significant workforce, technological, and integration opportunities for Australian industry.
The project is likely to generate up to 230 jobs, including for subcontractors, in high-tech areas including software development, systems engineering, project management and logistics. Around 150 jobs will be in South Australia, 60 in the NSW Hunter region, with others in Brisbane and Canberra.
The Albanese Government is also accelerating the ADF’s Medium-Range Ground-Based Air Defence capability, which will form part of a layered, integrated air missile defence capability. Options are currently being developed with several companies for Government consideration.
The Albanese Government is making the necessary investments to enhance the ADF and provide more coordinated and better integrated systems.
Quotes attributable to Deputy Prime Minister, the Hon Richard Marles MP:
“The Albanese Government is working at pace to ensure the ADF is equipped with modernised capabilities that will allow it to transition into a genuine integrated force optimised for national defence, as we implement the findings of the Defence Strategic Review.
“The new Joint Air Battle Management System, and the Medium-Range Ground-Based Air Defence System will contribute effective capabilities as part of an integrated ADF. These capabilities are essential in our pursuit of preserving and protecting our sovereignty and security, while also promoting stability in our region.”
Quotes attributable to the Minister for Defence Industry, the Hon Pat Conroy MP:
“This Government is maximising opportunities for Australian industry, including small and medium enterprises, as we deliver these important defence capabilities.
“I’m pleased to say today’s announcement will create a significant number of high-skilled secure defence industry jobs, boosting the local economy.”
Other related releases
https://www.minister.defence.gov.au...nment-invests-air-and-missile-defence-systems
 
P

peterAustralia

Member
changing topics for a short while... Last night Ukraine used drones to target a dozen or so aircraft at air bases in Russia. Has me thinking, it might be prudent to have hardened hangars for all aircraft. Yes there would be a reasonable initial capital cost, however the ongoing costs are quite minimal, as you are looking at a reinforced concrete half dome or (at a very rough guess 2 feet ) thickness. The point is, that as aircraft come and go, the hardened hangars will remain, even in fifty, one hundred, two hundred years... In the future, a potential enemy might have missiles that can fly a very long way. I dont know much about the air force, but at HMAS Albatros the helicopters are stored in conventional hangars, have never seen a hardened hangar there
 
V

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
peterAustralia said:
changing topics for a short while... Last night Ukraine used drones to target a dozen or so aircraft at air bases in Russia. Has me thinking, it might be prudent to have hardened hangars for all aircraft. Yes there would be a reasonable initial capital cost, however the ongoing costs are quite minimal, as you are looking at a reinforced concrete half dome or (at a very rough guess 2 feet ) thickness. The point is, that as aircraft come and go, the hardened hangars will remain, even in fifty, one hundred, two hundred years... In the future, a potential enemy might have missiles that can fly a very long way. I dont know much about the air force, but at HMAS Albatros the helicopters are stored in conventional hangars, have never seen a hardened hangar there
Click to expand...
perhaps that argument could be made for bases up north such as Darwin and the 3 bare bases but everything south of that so far out of range drones wouldn't be the threat to them. It would either be ICBM's and submarine/ship launched cruise missiles which I doubt a couple of ft of steel reinforced concrete would stand up to.
 
R

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
peterAustralia said:
changing topics for a short while... Last night Ukraine used drones to target a dozen or so aircraft at air bases in Russia. Has me thinking, it might be prudent to have hardened hangars for all aircraft. Yes there would be a reasonable initial capital cost, however the ongoing costs are quite minimal, as you are looking at a reinforced concrete half dome or (at a very rough guess 2 feet ) thickness. The point is, that as aircraft come and go, the hardened hangars will remain, even in fifty, one hundred, two hundred years... In the future, a potential enemy might have missiles that can fly a very long way. I dont know much about the air force, but at HMAS Albatros the helicopters are stored in conventional hangars, have never seen a hardened hangar there
Click to expand...
Australia's best defence against missile attack on home soil, is finding and taking out the launch platforms, make it very risky to try and get Subs and Surface ships close enough. No one has worked out how to launch missiles from 5000ft down. Thats why we have the big investment in ASuW and ASW happening. Very game Navy trying to get any warships near Australia with SSNs, Hunters and P-8s out there.
 
Todjaeger

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
peterAustralia said:
changing topics for a short while... Last night Ukraine used drones to target a dozen or so aircraft at air bases in Russia. Has me thinking, it might be prudent to have hardened hangars for all aircraft. Yes there would be a reasonable initial capital cost, however the ongoing costs are quite minimal, as you are looking at a reinforced concrete half dome or (at a very rough guess 2 feet ) thickness. The point is, that as aircraft come and go, the hardened hangars will remain, even in fifty, one hundred, two hundred years... In the future, a potential enemy might have missiles that can fly a very long way. I dont know much about the air force, but at HMAS Albatros the helicopters are stored in conventional hangars, have never seen a hardened hangar there
Click to expand...
There has been discussion here on DT about hardening RAAF hangars before. The basic issue with hardening a structure to protect aircraft is that there is a realistic limit to how much hardening can be effectively done, and how much protection that would really provide.

The examples I had used previously dated by to GW I & II, where hardened hangars housing Iraqi Air Force jets were targeted by allied PGM's using firstly paired 1,000 lbs LGB's using the first knock off/open the hangar doors with the 2nd LGB then released to detonate inside the hangar itself to destroy the "protected" aircraft. Later it was determined that a single, 2,000 lb. LGB dropped right onto the roof of the hardened structures would still effectively neutralize the structure.

What this means is that for something like AUD$11 mil. per HAS, the RAAF could construct a HAS (hardened aircraft shelter) which IIRC would have a steel-reinforced concrete roof something like a metre thick, but would still be very vulnerable to PGM's with warheads in the 2,000 lb. weight class. The cost figure is based off a USAF cost estimate of USD$4 mil. for fighter-sized HAS from 1999, adjusted for inflation and currency exchanges.

Assuming that all of the RAAF's fighter-sized aircraft were allocated a single HAS, that cost would be pushing AUD$1 bil. and they could still be taken out fairly easily with precision weaponry.
 
Takao

Takao

The Bunker Group
vonnoobie said:
perhaps that argument could be made for bases up north such as Darwin and the 3 bare bases but everything south of that so far out of range drones wouldn't be the threat to them. It would either be ICBM's and submarine/ship launched cruise missiles which I doubt a couple of ft of steel reinforced concrete would stand up to.
Click to expand...
That significantly ignores the likely main threat. These two attacks (Six Russian Il-76 planes, Tu-22 bomber hit in night drone raid on Pskov and Ukrainian drone destroys Russian supersonic bomber) were done with Australian-designed carboard drones. With a 5 kg load and 120 km range, its a much more likely threat.

Now, that does not mean that full HAS are required. The hangars at 1 Avn Regt will easily defeat a drone attack - they are designed to 300 kmph winds. Even a corrugated iron hangar may be sufficient.

It highlights that improved surveillance, counter-surveillance, and counter-UAS systems are essential - frankly anywhere there is a critical piece of equipment and population. Not just RAAF bases, but Garden Island (E and W) leap to mind - especially if a ship is in drydock, as does the shipyards and factories where key materiel is built.

Putting HAS everywhere is expensive. As @Todjaeger highlights, they may also not be immune to everything. Some of these HAS are still damaged due to legal arguments between Kuwait and the manufacturer over what they were meant to do v what they could. Note that @Todjaeger 's cost estimates are the absolute lowest - if you want to protect against bigger bombs, if you want alternate/spare/decoy ones, if you want a HAS for a P-8 (after all, P-8s and C-17s are much more valuable than an F-35), they all will drive the cost up.

And you might still have to deal with a SYPAQ drone snuck through the door....
 
P

peterAustralia

Member
I guess it can be subjective, if say the figure quoted is approximately 11 million dollars per hardened hangar, thanks for the figure by the way. It is true that they will not stop everything, but IMHO are a lot better than nothing. The idea is that invest a modest number of dollars now, and have a fallback for many many decades/centuries into the future.

In decades to come, drones might fly very long distances, think of something like a predator drone, the range is not given publicly , but rough maths is from online sources gives 740km each way, then 14 hours on target, say loiter speed is 150km/h, then that gives a very approximate extreme range one way suicide mission of roughly 3000km. A rough guess for warhead size for a suicide drone of this size,,, say 100kg

There was a charity that wanted some money from a big corporation, the charity said it sounds better if you ask for five lots of X dollars, over five years, rather than 5X dollars upfront, the CEO replied that he was sure that all his executives could do the mathematics easily and would see through the deception. The point is big numbers sound better if you say it as a small number over a large number of years

It may well be that in the event of a war, enemy insurgents covertly enter the nation on tourist visas, and then given the command they then combine high end commercially available drones with a few kilograms of explosives. If planned well, ten to twenty small commercially bought drones if fitted with explosives could disable say the majority of the future Apache fleet in one night,, and apart from the military detriment, it would also be embarrassing. Which is worse? The military loss or the embarrassment caused? That is for others to say

Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka carried out an attack on Colombo airport, and destroyed a lot of planes for minimal dollar cost. The SAS destroyed quite a few Pucaras at Pebble island in Falklands, Israel destroyed a lot of planes on ground early in six day war,, am sure there are other examples. I dont know much about RAAF bases but HMAS Albatross does not look super secure to me from a suprise attack like the Tamils did... I am sure there are systems and things in place that are not disclosed publicly (and I dont need to know what they are),,, just that driving past it many times there appears to be just a chain link fence and about a thousand yards of grass between the road and the helicopters.

Australia is a big place, maybe smaller kamikaze drones are launched by special forces landed covertly on the northern coastline. Maybe drones are launched by slow moving semi submersibles that launch at 100km from the coast. Is hard to predict the future and all sorts of innovative and 'wonderful' weapons will be developed. A hardened hangar would not stop a 2000 lb bomb, it would probably stop a 500lb bomb. Maybe something like five hangars a year over 20 years, that is 55 million dollars a year, IMHO a modest sum. Note that hangars can be used for helicopters, expensive drones like loyal wingman, expensive planes like F18 growlers.. F35s. After twenty years there would be 100 hardened hangars, and each should last say 200 years or so, maybe longer...

Again is subjective, my view is that it is a reasonable investment,,, it is true it can take money away from other things. if viewed in comparison to cost of the submarines,,, it is about zero point three percent
 
W

Wombat000

Well-Known Member
A dummy-locked gate only deters honest thieves.
nothing happens in Australia, so it’s ok.

besides if you force an opponent to greater effort to achieve a mission, it only encourages them to do more!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top