Royal Australian Air Force [RAAF] News, Discussions and Updates
Im curious to know if the decision by the rudd government to postpone global hawk into RAAF service to mabey 2017 is because that adding global hawk to airforce while new aircraft were being added would put serious workforce pressures on the RAAF,or is it due to present economic circumstances?I mean can airforce smoothly handle the projected aircraft influx in the next decade?
Also i read recently that Northrop Grumman could take punitive action against the australian government if global hawk- P-8/BAMS was cancelled.
Also i read recently that Northrop Grumman could take punitive action against the australian government if global hawk- P-8/BAMS was cancelled.
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
Unless a contract has actually been placed to purchase these systems (i don't think there has been) then there is nothing that Northrop could do.
The RAAF is going to be hurting as is. Look at all the new platforms within the next decade.
1. C-17
2. FA-18F
3. F-35
4. A330 MRTT
5. Wedgetail
6. PC9 Replacement
7. Possible (Probable?) P8A
8. Possible DHC4 Replacement
So basically, every FEG is replacing platforms, it is a big job transitioning, and for Maritime to be transitioning from P3 to P8 + Global Hawk at the same time would have been very big.
Lower operating costs is a major factor, particularly in the current economic climate and the expected service life of the aircraft.
Maintenance costs will be a big component, for example with each C-130 you are maintaining 4 engines per aircraft whereas the C-27 has two; in addition to parts, that is significant manpower reductions.
Age of the airframes also plays a significant part of maintenance costs.
With the aquisition of C-17s, I am not sure we have the need for a larger C-130 sized medium transport compared to a smaller and much more economical C-27 size aircraft which can do most things the C-130 can do at a much cheaper cost.
Has anyone heard much about the life extenstion kits being offered for the P-3 Orion?
Lockheed Martin has commenced production of these; apparantly they majorly enhance service life at a significantly cheaper cost than procuring a new aircraft (particulalrly as the P-8 is still under development).
from http://www.lockheedmartin.com/news/press_releases/2008/040208ae_p3norway.html
"Each life extension kit replaces the outer wings, center wing lower surface assembly, horizontal stabilizer, wing and horizontal stabilizer leading edges and various filet fairings. All necessary fatigue-life limiting structures are replaced, allowing the RNoAF to operate its Orions for decades to come. New alloys, which are five times less corrosive and will significantly reduce maintenance and sustainment costs, are employed in the manufacture of the new components. ASLEP is the only solution that removes all current flight restrictions on the P-3."
Is it worth the RAAF considering these service life extension kits? I do know that our Orions are the youngest of their kind in the world.
Lockheed Martin has commenced production of these; apparantly they majorly enhance service life at a significantly cheaper cost than procuring a new aircraft (particulalrly as the P-8 is still under development).
from http://www.lockheedmartin.com/news/press_releases/2008/040208ae_p3norway.html
"Each life extension kit replaces the outer wings, center wing lower surface assembly, horizontal stabilizer, wing and horizontal stabilizer leading edges and various filet fairings. All necessary fatigue-life limiting structures are replaced, allowing the RNoAF to operate its Orions for decades to come. New alloys, which are five times less corrosive and will significantly reduce maintenance and sustainment costs, are employed in the manufacture of the new components. ASLEP is the only solution that removes all current flight restrictions on the P-3."
Is it worth the RAAF considering these service life extension kits? I do know that our Orions are the youngest of their kind in the world.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
ADF has been assessing this very option for the last 12 months.
The report is due at the end of March, though I doubt we'll find out about it's findings until WP and the ensuing Defence Capability Plan...
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
Actually they did sign a contract when they decided to participate in the program. There will be financial penalties involved for withdrawing at this stage.
On another note, a little bird told me that there is an unofficial deadline for wedgetail, 10 months to get the system on its feet or the RAAF is going to pull the plug! Can any of you DP's comment on that? Little bird heard it from pretty high up the tree. Anyone have an idea what plan B options we have going? PHALCON? Or maybe E-2D on a 10 year lease until we can acquire next gen systems.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Unlikely.
Nope, they have an IRST program to acquire such a capability, but it's going to be mounted in the front of a centre-line mounted fuel tank.
What it looks like can be seen here:
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/ELEC_IRST_Tank_on_F-18F_lg.jpg
You got any idea of the cost of it?Im wondering if theres an air to air scenerio where out of neccesity the centre line tank is jettisoned.
Also how many are being ordered?
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
I don't think any orders have been placed yet, but I'll be surprised if it is a "one for one" order, particularly given SH won't be armed with a long ranged IIR guided A2A weapon any time soon.
Development is on-going for this system.
AS to the jettisoning of the tank. I've no idea if that will even be possible, not discounting the loss of a no doubt expensive sensor. I imagine the cable connections will probably reduce this capability.
I've no idea if Australia plans to acquire such a capability in future years, either.
No it won't. However, some sections and components will be
Only non-US assembly line planned for the F-35 is in Italy. AFAIK, it's scheduled to assemble Italian & (presuming they're ordered, which I think is pretty safe) Dutch F-35s so far.
Do you know the reasoning for this?
Do the other countries deem it economically unattractive to have their own assembly lines?
There are only two production lines worldwide. One in the US in Fort Worth, Texas, and the far smaller one in Italy. And the one in Italy is officially more like a backup, to provide a second line if production ramp-up (post-LRIP) at the Fort Worth facility doesn't work as planned. The facility in Italy will also only be a final assembly line.
Is it something the federal government doesnt want to undertake based on the cost of setting up an australian production line?
Or do the americans want to keep production as local to the us as possible?
This is something that was decided by all the nations involved, not the USA. Australia I am sure will have plenty of offsets with the F-35s, building some parts for many nations. This is also true for other nations as well. The idea is to get the most bang for the buck for everyone.
Or to put it into other words, provide enough offsets for everyone. Its more a world produced aircraft than just an aircraft with American parts.
Or to put it into other words, provide enough offsets for everyone. Its more a world produced aircraft than just an aircraft with American parts.
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
Isnt BAe building like half the components of the aircraft (a bit of an exaggeration...). I assume the BAe sourced components would be produced in the UK, US and Australia mainly.