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

[Tasman]

Super Hornet purchase to feature on Four Corners again!

Next week's Four Corners TV program will once again feature a review of Australia's decision to purchase the FA-18F Super Hornet.

It will be interesting to see who the producers choose as 'experts', the RAAF or APA and retired RAAF critics like AVM Criss.

Tas

 

[AGRA]

I would imagine it will be an abslute lynch job... Like the 60 Minutes report but with less aerobatics and more bullshit.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted

 

[rossfrb_1]

I would imagine it will be an abslute lynch job... Like the 60 Minutes report but with less aerobatics and more bullshit.

More bullshit than 60 minutes, is that possible? I stopped watching that program over a decade ago for that very reason.
I have to admit that the ABC has dumbed itself down to compete with the fairy-floss channels 7, nein & 10. Which I think is sad.
They (4 corners) have a guestbook page, which I suspect may get some use after that particular episode airs.
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/


rb

 

[battlensign]

I would imagine it will be an abslute lynch job... Like the 60 Minutes report but with less aerobatics and more bullshit.

Thats interesting.........having Austar, I don't really watch regular commercial TV and was therefore unaware that there was a 60 minutes program on the SBUGs......


Brett.

 

[icelord]

After watching the promo, i fear the story will surpass 62mins as a beat up of them all. They really do need to realise, its better then sitting on our hands and asking for an aircraft that won't be on the market(F-22 anyone)

 

[rjmaz1]

Meanwhile, did anyone get the news about our hawk trainers?

 

[FutureTank]

Meanwhile, did anyone get the news about our hawk trainers?

No. Let me guess, some are being converted for COIN operations in Iraq/Afghanistan?

 

[barra]

Meanwhile, did anyone get the news about our hawk trainers?

Have heard that they are currently grounded while some hairline cracks in the airframe are investigated. Resumption of flying will depend on the severity of the cracks found and how much of the fleet is affected.
Hooroo

 

[Magoo]

Have heard that they are currently grounded while some hairline cracks in the airframe are investigated. Resumption of flying will depend on the severity of the cracks found and how much of the fleet is affected.
Hooroo

I don't think they're grounded - just under operating restrictions pending an investigation.

Cheers

Magoo

 

[barra]

Maybe grounded is to strong a word, but I am pretty sure they are not flying at the moment. I don't think any went down for the airshow at Edinburgh this weekend. Happy to be corrected.

Hooroo

 

[FutureTank]

Have heard that they are currently grounded while some hairline cracks in the airframe are investigated. Resumption of flying will depend on the severity of the cracks found and how much of the fleet is affected.
Hooroo

Well, that's interesting because the other news regarding Hawks was that they were used to test the F-35 pilot helmets for G forces in UK. I wonder if the RAAF didn't do same here because that would have involved pulling 9Gs. However the Hawk airframes are not that old to start showing stress fractures even if pushed to this level of performance.

 

[FutureTank]

New fuel for Australian C-17s?

C-17 Flight Uses Synthetic Fuel Blend

(Source: US Air Force; issued Oct. 25, 2007)

EDWARDS AIR FORCE BASE, Calif. --- A C-17 Globemaster III took off Oct. 22 on a flight using a blend of synthetic and JP-8 fuels in all four fuel tanks.

This is the first time a C-17 has flown using a Fischer-Tropsch/JP-8 blend as the only fuel on board. Air Force members successfully flew a C-17 Oct. 19 with the Fischer-Tropsch/JP-8 blend in one tank to validate engine performance.

C-17 certification is the next big step by the Air Force to certify synthetic fuel blends for its fleet. The C-17 is the workhorse of the mobility airlift fleet and the biggest user of jet fuel. The four-hour flight was designed to assess how well the aircraft performed using the synthetic blend of fuel. The mission consisted of ground operation of the auxiliary power unit and evaluation of in-flight performance of the engines and fuel quantity measurement system throughout the C-17 operational envelope.

An Air Force Flight Test Center crew flew the mission and was pleased with the performance of the aircraft, they said.

"There was no discernible difference between JP-8 and Fischer-Tropsch," said Maj. Scott Sullivan, the mission pilot.

The final steps for C-17 certification include a service evaluation out of McChord Air Force Base, Wash., completion of material compatibility tests and final supplier qualification of the engine, auxiliary power unit and fuel quantity measurement system with the Fischer-Tropsch/JP-8 blend.

Fleet-wide certification is planned for the first quarter of 2008, making the C-17 the second AF platform to be certified to use this synthetic fuel blend. The B-52 Stratofortress was the first, completing certification Aug. 8.

In accordance with the Secretary of the Air Force's Assured Fuels Initiative, all USAF aircraft will be certified by 2011. An office has been created at the Aeronautical Systems Center, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, to manage this unparalleled effort.

-ends-

 

[barra]

I wonder if the RAAF didn't do same here because that would have involved pulling 9Gs.

Any testing would be carried out by ARDU and they would use their Hornets for any testing. Hornets are G limited to 7.5G, any overstresses (i.e. 7.5G+)require inspection of the airframe on the after flight servicing. I can't see why a Hawk would be used in lieu of their Hornets.

Synthetic fuels hey?, I wonder if that is a good diesel substitute as well. I know a few guys who have run their 4WD's on avtur, it runs OK but you lose a little power. It's the right price and can't be re-used in A/C once it is drained from the tanks anyway!!

Hooroo

 

[FutureTank]

Any testing would be carried out by ARDU and they would use their Hornets for any testing. Hornets are G limited to 7.5G, any overstresses (i.e. 7.5G+)require inspection of the airframe on the after flight servicing. I can't see why a Hawk would be used in lieu of their Hornets.

Synthetic fuels hey?, I wonder if that is a good diesel substitute as well. I know a few guys who have run their 4WD's on avtur, it runs OK but you lose a little power. It's the right price and can't be re-used in A/C once it is drained from the tanks anyway!!

Hooroo

Hooroo, I'm only repeating what I have read re RAF testing.

Why cant the fuel be reused once it is drained? Pardon my ignorance

 

[rjmaz1]

Maybe grounded is to strong a word, but I am pretty sure they are not flying at the moment.

All hawks around the world may soon be grounded and require inspection.

Im not allowed to say anymore until it becomes public.

However the Hawk airframes are not that old to start showing stress fractures even if pushed to this level of performance.

Parts often fail well before their lifetimne. Such causes of failure can be manufacturing fault, poor maintainance, damage etc.

 

[FutureTank]

All hawks around the world may soon be grounded and require inspection.

Im not allowed to say anymore until it becomes public.


Parts often fail well before their lifetimne. Such causes of failure can be manufacturing fault, poor maintainance, damage etc.

They are not even 15 years old. Of course there are no guarantees on airframe, but I would have expected at least 25 years from a training aircraft.

 

[Simon9]

Synthetic fuels hey?, I wonder if that is a good diesel substitute as well. I know a few guys who have run their 4WD's on avtur, it runs OK but you lose a little power. It's the right price and can't be re-used in A/C once it is drained from the tanks anyway!!

Yes it's a very good, very clean diesel. Almost zero sulphur too. I've worked (as a contract geologist) for several companies setting up synthetic diesel/aviation spirit plants based on coal or carbonaceous rocks, called GTL (gas-to-liquids) or CTL (coal-to-liquids) technology. They run on the Fischer-Tropsch process mentioned in the article.

I confidently predict this will be the future of our fuel supplies. Crude oil production appears to have peaked in 2005, and is probably only going downhill from here.

Conversely there are many, many times more potential oil reserves in coal and carbonaceous rocks, and it's a lot cheaper too. One of the projects I've worked on claims they will be able to produce a barrel of diesel (that's DIESEL, not crude - worth about $140+) for a mere $40. Their share price has quadrupled in 12 months, luckily I got in on the ground floor.

 

[FutureTank]

Next week's Four Corners TV program will once again feature a review of Australia's decision to purchase the FA-18F Super Hornet.

It will be interesting to see who the producers choose as 'experts', the RAAF or APA and retired RAAF critics like AVM Criss.

Tas

I just had a look at the ABC site for the program promo.
It says in part "Fears soon emerged that the JSF could be late. Defence brass gave public assurances that the F-111s could be kept flying to cover any gap in air defence."
How could Defence 'brass' say that if the F-111 was never used in the air defence role? It is a bomber after all, and would fare no better against Suchoi or MiG fighters then the SH.

Hmmm...so much for research!

 

[icelord]

Why is the F-111 comming up as the sole reason we are holding out against the wave of ruski jets coming in? The f-111 was bought as a deterent, and hey we were never attacked during the cold war, i'd say it worked!
The f-111 is as futuretank stated, a "BOMBER". The SU-27 is...a fighter, bomber Vs Fighter....de der de dan de(think star trek fight scene here) I truely truely have my doubts about four corners program tonight, and am dissapointed i will miss south park and supernatural( i flick between) for this beat up.
The SH would last a little longer then the Hornets in current operations, but the problem is, the SH is designated for Williamtown "home of the fighter" if it truely was for "defence of the realm" then would it not be more pruedent to base it up north? How can we complain about a plane that is superior to our current crop, and have i not heard the other guys( NO POLITICS ALLOWED HERE!) say that SH along with F-22(hahahahahaha)in the future would suit Australia. WE CAN"T BUY IT!
bah, south park looks good tonight