And to that point, most of the publicy available "data" that they use is fabricated by them to suit. It is pretty easy to try and make your data look good, especially when you stack it and use incorrect assumptions to make your case
Royal Australian Air Force [RAAF] News, Discussions and Updates
And to that point, most of the publicy available "data" that they use is fabricated by them to suit. It is pretty easy to try and make your data look good, especially when you stack it and use incorrect assumptions to make your case
I'm not 100% sure I understand what you are describing but it kind of sounds like a carrier landing pattern. You can see it in this video at about two and a half minutes in with a bolter.
[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jv8prm4mGEQ"]HMS Ark Royal aviation opération - YouTube[/nomedia]
How isbit fabricated?
Fabricated. It's an adjective, Perplexed.
It's dictionary meaning is: "formed or conceived by the imagination."
It fits perfectly what APA comes up with when they wish to discuss specifics on the JSF or F/A-18F Super Hornet or hell, even any of the Flanker variants for that matter.
The reason being not one of them is an operator with any access to that information, so unless you suspect them of espionage or some other unlawful means through which they've managed to acquire that data, then the only remaining conclusion can be that they have fabricated the material they have generated in relation to these topics...
What ADMk2 is saying is that APA dont have REAL DATA, only what they read on the net, and hearsay from other "EXPERTS" like them selves. They make stuff up to suit their arguement.
People in the know, can not, and will not reveal what the F35 has up its sleeve, just as SU 27/30 and even our own F18F operators wont use all of that aircrafts capabilites (like radar) to its full extent on international exercises or even domestic exercises that are monitored.
There fore only operators and people with clearences know what these aircraft are capable of. Thats why the RAAF have selected this aircraft, because THEY KNOW what they are getting. APA do not.
People in the know, can not, and will not reveal what the F35 has up its sleeve, just as SU 27/30 and even our own F18F operators wont use all of that aircrafts capabilites (like radar) to its full extent on international exercises or even domestic exercises that are monitored.
There fore only operators and people with clearences know what these aircraft are capable of. Thats why the RAAF have selected this aircraft, because THEY KNOW what they are getting. APA do not.
Thanks for that, I did not know .
Its called an initial and pitch. They fly to the Initial point (generally 5NM away down the extended centreline of the runway) and then fly down over the airfield aligned with the runway before Pitching out into a standard circuit.
The reason for it is this is the simplest, fastest and safest way to get large numbers of aircraft into the airfield quickly when weather conditions are relatively good. It used to be used during WWII because it would give you less time airborne when slow with your gear down (which makes you a supremely easy target to other aircraft). Long straight in approaches take more time, airspace and fuel.
You have been banned previously, so you're hereby warned about posting empty one liners that contribute nothing to this forum.
If you wish to have any longevity here, I advise you to have a thorough read of the forum rules and abide by them. I know who you are and most likely what you're here for but in the interests of fair play I'm at least willing to give you a chance.
The rules can be found here:
http://defencetalk.com/forums/rules.php
Abide by them as everyone else does or you won't be here long.
I took the grandsons along to the Pitch Black open day last week and was very impressed as they both were.
I also took some phots but couldn't post them because of size (I think my PC is too old to manage it) BUT
The oz Shornets look fantastic and shiny vis a vis the lagacy Hornets which look totally clagged out, in fact I was a bit taken aback. I didn't realize they were sooo different, always assumed they were just a different cockpit
One plane that did impress me, a layman on these things, was the Singapore Gulfstream 550 AEW. Do these have equipment in the Wedgetail league? or are they a steady evolved capability from the E2's. The crew obviously didn't say much when asked.
The TNI AU S-27 and S-30 look dated even when alongside the F-15.
Sorry to be totally ignorant but totally outside my comfort zone however, kids loved it and a successful day.
Cheers
I also took some phots but couldn't post them because of size (I think my PC is too old to manage it) BUT
The oz Shornets look fantastic and shiny vis a vis the lagacy Hornets which look totally clagged out, in fact I was a bit taken aback. I didn't realize they were sooo different, always assumed they were just a different cockpit
One plane that did impress me, a layman on these things, was the Singapore Gulfstream 550 AEW. Do these have equipment in the Wedgetail league? or are they a steady evolved capability from the E2's. The crew obviously didn't say much when asked.
The TNI AU S-27 and S-30 look dated even when alongside the F-15.
Sorry to be totally ignorant but totally outside my comfort zone however, kids loved it and a successful day.
Cheers
The Aussie Supers do look good indeed, I had a good look at them last time at Avalon and was really impressed. They're actually quite a bit different to the legacy Hornets, bigger airframe, different intakes, larger leading edge extensions, horizontal stabilisers (and wing leading edges if I recall correctly) are shaped slightly differently, etc... plus all the "under the hood" stuff, of course.
Good for you getting to see a Sukhoi in Australia, that's not something that comes along every day. I remember when I was very young seeing the SU-27 they brought out one year for Avalon, but I don't think they've had any Sukhois at that particular event since then. I believe someone tried to bring an SU-30 over a few years back, but it didn't pass some standard required for public performances... beauty of an aircraft to see in action...
Those Singaporean F-15s look mean as hell...
Can't help you on the Gulfstream question, sorry about that... always glad to shoot the breeze about air shows though : )
Good for you getting to see a Sukhoi in Australia, that's not something that comes along every day. I remember when I was very young seeing the SU-27 they brought out one year for Avalon, but I don't think they've had any Sukhois at that particular event since then. I believe someone tried to bring an SU-30 over a few years back, but it didn't pass some standard required for public performances... beauty of an aircraft to see in action...
Those Singaporean F-15s look mean as hell...
Can't help you on the Gulfstream question, sorry about that... always glad to shoot the breeze about air shows though : )
These are Israeli technology. The radars are very advanced but not as powerful as the Wedgetail. Also the Gulfstream is basically just a radar picket. It has to transmit its radar picture down to the ground for people to then tell the fighters where to go. The Wedgetail carries around its own crew of fighter controllers to run the battlefield. For Israel and Singapore fighting a defensive battle the Gulfstream is more than adequate but they would be limited compared to Wedgetail or AWACS away from their home bases. The same Israeli radar technology was offered to the RAAF for Wedgetail scaled up and mounted on an A310 platform. While not as advanced as the Boeing/Northrop offer it would have been in service years ago…
Gordon Branch
New Member
I am a member a scale model club in Canberra and we had AVM Chris Deeble, Wedgetail Project Director come and speak to us about the project last month.
Yes the Wedgetail is more than a radar picket it is an important command, control and communications asset. I think he also said there was a naval officer onboard to help coordinate overwater missions as MESA is very good over the sea.
As to a rotor mounted radar being available being in service earlier than the MESA on Wedgetail I can't speak to that but I do know from Chris Deeble's talk the MESA is much more flexible than a mechanically rotated system.
The flexibility to do 360 degree scans with no "down time" when the radar isn't trained on the targets (as with rotor system) makes for a greatly increased situational awareness.
The electronic scanning also allows the rationing (for want of a better word) of scan time so the Wedgetail can concentrate on one sector and still keep a watch on other sectors. There are other advantages.
The question was asked as to whether the Wedgetail was a poor 2nd to the E3. Chris Deeble stated in no way was Wedgetail 2nd class and that the USAF bods who looked at the system on recent deployments were HIGHLY impressed at the Wedgetail capability.
An A310 based system may have been available earlier but from my listening to the Project Director it would not have been as capable a system. (Which Abraham does acknowledge.)
A less advanced system available 5-10 years ago or an advanced state of the art system that is as good as anything for the next 20(?) years. I think I'll take the 2nd box Bob.
P.S. The Wedgetail is now officially the E-7 Wedgetail
Couple of quick points.
The G550 has controllers onboard.
Oldschool rotor systems did 360 degree scans. In fact thats all they could do, because the they would look where the radar was, and it would rotate at something like 1 rotation in 10-15 seconds. What the Wedgetail's MESA enables you to do is to look pretty much everywhere and anywhere nearly simultaneously.
The G550 has controllers onboard.
Oldschool rotor systems did 360 degree scans. In fact thats all they could do, because the they would look where the radar was, and it would rotate at something like 1 rotation in 10-15 seconds. What the Wedgetail's MESA enables you to do is to look pretty much everywhere and anywhere nearly simultaneously.
The Raytheon/Elta offer of an A310 AEW&C did not have a rotating antenna. It had three fixed phased arrays mounted in a triangle inside a dorsal radome. It kind of looks like the rotating radome of the AWACS or Hawkeye but was actually very different. The same arrangement has been implemented on the Indian Air Force A-50E/I Phalcon AEW&C. It’s just an easy way to get three big antennas onto an aircraft looking in the right directions without all the complexity of the forward and rear firing of the MESA top hat antenna arrangement or conformal arrays.
As to good enough today or better next week this has been a constant problem in Australian defence planning. Sure it works fine once you get the weapon system in service. But the time spent waiting for it (F-111, ARH, Wedgetail, etc) and the loss in outlay if it fails (Seasprite, I-View, etc) is much harder to reconcile. In the case of AEW&C if we had acquired some second hand Hawkeyes from the USN back in the late 1990s and then contracted Boeing to be lead customer for the “E-7” then all would be good. Capability would have been assured and in place until the keeper system is ready.
Last edited:
Yep but there are quite a few more in the Wedgetail.
I don’t think there were any mechanical scanners offered for Project Wedgetail. Even the Hawkeye offering used the new phased array radar in its rotating radome. So it would rotate to provide 360 degree situational awareness but if some action was going on in one sector would stop rotating and point the antenna in this direction for constant coverage.
PS On the controllers and CAEW thing I didn't mean to imply there were none onboard but can see how my original message could be read to indicate that. The use of "basically" can be rather misleading... But the CAEW definitely takes its basic approach from the Hawkeye book with 3-4 controllers (using the pilots as part-timers) and data linked into a ground station that runs the show. The Wedgetail is like a ‘super Hawkeye’ (Former 42 Wing OC’s term not mine) with twice the controllers and more capability to act like an AWACS running a much bigger and more complex air battle.
They have 2 x RAN staff on board
Tee_Centre_10
Member
The decision to go ahead with the Growler conversions has been made, with the capability to be operational in 2018. Whether this is IOC or FOC isn't said. With the aircraft already wired, you would think that 6 years would be for FOC.
Program will cost $1.5b, but it isn't stated how many conversion kits in all will be purchased. We can hope it is 12 kits for all the wired airframes, but it is possible that there will be fewer acquired.
EDIT: The ADF image library has some mocked up images of RAAF Growlers. I note they seem to be sporting HARMs. No mention of munitions in the statement among the "conversion kits, supporting equipment and systems, spares and training and initial training systems" that are to be acquired.
Program will cost $1.5b, but it isn't stated how many conversion kits in all will be purchased. We can hope it is 12 kits for all the wired airframes, but it is possible that there will be fewer acquired.
EDIT: The ADF image library has some mocked up images of RAAF Growlers. I note they seem to be sporting HARMs. No mention of munitions in the statement among the "conversion kits, supporting equipment and systems, spares and training and initial training systems" that are to be acquired.
and barely a murmur from Govt about the extra financial hurt that accompanies these assets in 4-5 years time..... (that everyone in RAAF certainly has a clue about - and the other services by association as all will cop the hurt)
and no, I won't add detail in a public forum
and no, I won't add detail in a public forum
This probably seems a silly question to the experts but why is Australia investing in Growlers with delivery date of 2018 when the F-35 is "just around the corner"?
I thought the F-35 would have some very significant EW capabilities? Seems I was wrong? Or am I missing something else?
I thought the F-35 would have some very significant EW capabilities? Seems I was wrong? Or am I missing something else?
