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

[Aussie Digger]

hey,AD, is Aust Aviation a credible publication? the article also mentions possible ressuection of the KIWI,s macchi,s...as trainers only.

Yep, I think it is pretty reasonable. That Andrew Mclaughlin seems like a reasonable fellow, on the sole occasion we met... It's one of the few military/aviation magazines I still subscribe to...

Which reminds me, something has happened. Must email AA... (Er, nevermind that people, move along...)

Yes, there has been some talk the Kiwi's might be resurrecting some of the Macchi's they haven't been able to sell, to take over their flight training from the King Air's they operate now.

Plenty more of this over on the RNZAF threads...

 

[Magoo]

For two reasons, I will avoid answering that question by posing another question:

Is this something the magazine projects the US will offer or is it something they are predicting Australia will ask for?

Both. It's already been offered, and now that the Hornet CBR program looks like being delayed or possibly falling over and JSF slips further to the right, a second batch of F/A-18E/Fs is actively being talked about on Russell Hill.

As for G models, they've been talked about but, like the F-22, the US may not be willing to export.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

just read in australian aviation mag, that the RAAF may get a follow on buy of a further 24 S H including 8 G models. Magoo, do you know any more on this? or barra? Also stated that P8 requirement was 10 - 15 aircraft, this suggests that the P8 has been selected?

I've allready vioced my concernes about this. However it seems i'm alone on that matter. Just to clarify this isnt a SH vs SU30 comparison its a SH vs F35 comparison and there should be no competition, even form you super-bug lovers out there. Its a further $6bn at least, and the only way on earth defence is going to get annother $6bn is by nearly HALVING the aquisition budget for F35. This means 2 squadrons of F35's, even IF jonny stays in canberra. If Labour gets in, well, they could just save annother $5bn pluss and buy the ballance of supers. This is a bad thing alltogether IMO. Its only saving grace will be if 8 growlers are indeed bought, that will gve the ADF an Ewarfare capability that is a mile ahead of anyone in the region.

However if there is realistic justification, meaning CBR programme is basically a failure then we dont have much of a chioce do we? So what is the actuall story with the CBR programme? Is there a realistic possibility of programe failure or just some "reduced availability" issues that warrents this purchase?

regarding the fed election, i dont think its a one horse race as the media suggests. most people i know are sticking with the devil they know, regardless of what the polls say.(or the worm!)

Well the coalition is up 2 points. that makes it 46 to 54, and thats only 4 points difference. I'd say its not over till its over.

 

[Capt. Picard]

Well the coalition is up 2 points. that makes it 46 to 54, and thats only 4 points difference. I'd say its not over till its over.

Politics again?

 

[gf0012-aust]

Its only saving grace will be if 8 growlers are indeed bought, that will gve the ADF an Ewarfare capability that is a mile ahead of anyone in the region.

I think we should pause before getting any Growlers. It might be useful to interact a bit with the USMC before making that kind of decision.....

As for that ridiculous 4 Corners episode, I've lodged a complaint with the ABC about its shonky and deceptive presentation of facts.

Note: lets leave local politics out of this discussion.

 

[FutureTank]

wish i could post a link,but sorry cant. The way I read it was, a rumor that the RAAF wanted them due to fatigue in the legacy hornets, and flight hours on the old airframes by 2012. leaving the RAAF with only about 24 legacy F18,s and the 24 SH by then. predicting further deleys in the F35...2020....

Just collected my copy of the Australian Defence Force Journal no.173, and the cover features an F-35
The Chief of Air Force says on the matter: "The planned air combat transitions alone involve the withdrawal of the F-111 and introduction of the F/A-18F in 2010, the transition to the F-35 from 2013 to 2018, the phaseout of the F/A-18A from 2014, and the desired withdrawal of the F/A-18F and introduction of Phase 2C of the NACC from 2018 to 2020.
Phase 2C might be a new platform, an uninhabited aerial vehicle or a fourth squadron of F-35. My view is clear - I want the 4th JSF squadron."

I would like to note that no specific F-35 version is stipulated in this presentation by the CAF.

Politics again?

Who wins will have a real effect on many defence projects, including the furure shape of the RAAF. So i dont think a one or 2 line mention on who is up n the polls is out of line? Anyway your a labour man aren't you??? You should be happy, its the first time you guys have really been in the hunt since keating.

 

[Magoo]

Its a further $6bn at least, and the only way on earth defence is going to get annother $6bn is by nearly HALVING the aquisition budget for F35.

Not really, and don't forget the $6bn includes all the fuel, manning and support costs for at least a decade, so that would have to be paid no matter what we flew.

A second batch of 24 Supers would probably cost between $2 and $2.5 billion.

However if there is realistic justification, meaning CBR programme is basically a failure then we dont have much of a chioce do we? So what is the actuall story with the CBR programme? Is there a realistic possibility of programe failure or just some "reduced availability" issues that warrents this purchase?

Yeah, CBR is in the balance at this stage. One jet was done in Canada and is due to return to the air any day now, however L-3 vastly underestimated the amount of parts required to do one CBR. The RAAF will probably do another few jets in Canada, but I honestly can't see all 42 to 49 CBRs being done that far away! Plus there's serious doubt whether there is sufficient skilled workforce at Willy'town to do the CBR work.

And on top of this, elements of the Hornet Industry Coalition which would do the work, don't think the CBR work is necessary.

Interesting times... looks like the Super buy was a sensible one after all, regardless of the initial reasons...

 

[Aussie Digger]

Oh...hes THAT ELP, yeah Clancy Scenarios are more relevant to ADF policy then a 20-40 C-17 fleet for the RAAF.:nutkick

And a shout out to mill, Kopps, Fowler...we know your out there, peace my brothers, peace!

Yep.

THIS ELP :

http://elpwarpigs.blogspot.com/

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

I think we should pause before getting any Growlers. It might be useful to interact a bit with the USMC before making that kind of decision.....

Really, why?? Questions of capability, usefullness or overkill?? I would have thought a fair amount of information would have been disclosed to the RAAF re growlers by the USN?

Note: lets leave local politics out of this discussion.

kk..

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Not really, and don't forget the $6bn includes all the fuel, manning and support costs for at least a decade, so that would have to be paid no matter what we flew.

A second batch of 24 Supers would probably cost between $2 and $2.5 billion.

Well since DMin has started quoting total costs then i'm asuming he would quote total costs in this instance aswell. Allthough you are correct the actuall aquisition cost would be significantly lower, and most of the running costs would be spent runing HUG Bugs, its still a very large purchase. Considering that we are only set to keep F18F until 2020, thats a heap of money to spendon a ten year inventment. I've got a hunch that if annother squadron of F18F bk2's were bought SH would become a perminant feature in the RAAF's orbat, at the expence of F35 squadrons. That outcome, 2 SH squadrons instead of 2 F35 squadrons, is not one i can be happy with given the capability the RAAF sacrifices.

Yeah, CBR is in the balance at this stage. One jet was done in Canada and is due to return to the air any day now, however L-3 vastly underestimated the amount of parts required to do one CBR. The RAAF will probably do another few jets in Canada, but I honestly can't see all 42 to 49 CBRs being done that far away! Plus there's serious doubt whether there is sufficient skilled workforce at Willy'town to do the CBR work.

And on top of this, elements of the Hornet Industry Coalition which would do the work, don't think the CBR work is necessary.

Interesting times... looks like the Super buy was a sensible one after all, regardless of the initial reasons...

What is actually envolved in a CBR??

If it is indeed not viable the what would the service life be for most of the bugs we have ATM?? would 2018 be viable at all without the programme?

 

[rjmaz1]

and the only way on earth defence is going to get annother $6bn is by nearly HALVING the aquisition budget for F35.

Money goes into the pool each year from the budget, when we buy something we take money out of the pool.

If we purchased a second batch of Super Hornets that means the F-35 is delayed. In that time of the delay the money in the pool will build back up again.

This is the why the first 24 super hornets had no effect on the F-35 budget as we have two addition years of budget before the F-35 arrives so that money was spent on the Super Hornets.

If it slips another year then that money will go towards a second batch. Any reductions in the F-35 would be minimal at best/worse.

 

[Magoo]

What is actually envolved in a CBR??

Imagine a cross section of the Hornet's centre fuselage (not counting the upper fuselage spine area) taken just behind the intakes and going back about 3 metres, that's the 'centre barrel'. It comprises three major pieces each about a metre long and through which the air intakes run, and a few smaller pieces which form attachment points. The aircraft's forward fuselage, engine mounts, wings and mounts, fuselage fuel tanks, and undercarriage are all attached to it, so it's obviously THE key structural part of the aircraft. Barra might be able to elaborate...

All Hornet centre barrels are built by Northrop Grumman at El Segundo in LA. (I've been there a couple of times and thought about backing El Segundo in the Cox Plate last weekend...wish I had now!)

The 'classic' Hornet was originally cleared to a fatigue life of about 6500 hours, however US Navy Hornets started experiencing some severe cracking at 4300 hours, hence the CBR program being initiated. Canada and then Australia also started seeing some fatigue cracking, although it was far less severe and in different areas to those of the US Navy jets. US jets are primarily employed on air-to-ground duties and have to land on and be thrown off carriers, whereas Canadian and Aussie jets have a higher emphasis on air-to-air and therefore use their fatigue up in different areas.

Canada originally had 130-odd CF-18s and opted to do CBRs on 80 jets, but after doing 13 CBRs they then suspended their program and re-certified their jets for 9000 hours. This will be managed by performing reactive and proactive maintenence on cracks, in much the same way as the RAAF did Phase 3.1 of the HUG program. The US Navy are only doing a few CBRs a year and then only on F/A-18C/D aircraft with the later avionics fit, but are seemingly leaning towards ordering more Supers instead.

If it is indeed not viable the what would the service life be for most of the bugs we have ATM?? would 2018 be viable at all without the programme?

Without some intense fatigue management, the older RAAF jets will start falling over around 2012, with the bulk of the fleet becoming unviable from late 2015 onwards. However, if we took the brave (but unlikely) step and re-certified ours for say, 7500 hours and did additional HUG 3.1 stuff, we might get 40 or so jets through to 2017 or later.

Cheers

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

@Magoo...

Thankyou for your clarification on the issue, as usual it was very informative. So the CBR programe requires the whole aircraft to be taken apart? Something big i assume. So what is the problem exactly? I understand its a complex procedure but why is it going through unexpected problems???

@everyone.....

I scabed this from annother forum. Its a Rhino in RAAF No.1 SQ markings. guess it shows the flexibility of the platform, note the JSOW, JDAM, AMRAAM and AIM 9X on the various hardpoints. Kind of illusitrates the benifits we enjoy with a multi-role platform, and what we've been missing with the Pig for the last 10 odd years.

 

[Aussie Digger]

I do wonder if the F18F is the ideal. From an airframe point of view it seems quite inferior to an Su30 Mk II. No doubt it has a superior radar and avionics that may well give it the edge. However avionics can be upgraded. Maybe in 10 years the Su30 will have upgraded avionics and radar, then there will be problems, with a better airframe and competitive avionics then the F18-F may have big problems. My point is that avionics can be upgraded, whereas it is harder to upgrade range, speed, maneuverability etc.

Hey Pete, though I doubt you still read this forum after attempting to defend that so called "report", I wondered if this comment might interest you at all?

"In a low speed post-merge manoeuvring fight, with a high off-boresight 4th generation missile and Helmet Mounted Display, the Super Hornet will be a very difficult opponent for any current Russian fighter, even the Su-27/30. The analogue and early generation digital flight controls with hard-wired or hard-coded AoA limiters used in the Russian aircraft are a generation behind the Super Hornet and a much more experienced pilot will be required for the Russian types to match the ease with which the Super Hornet handles high alpha flight regimes."

It was written by Doctor Carlo Kopp in 2001 in an article in Australian Aviation magazine.

I wonder what has changed? Perhaps Boeing has engineered the Super Hornet to make it WORSE in 2007 than it was in 2001...

 

[barra]

Imagine a cross section of the Hornet's centre fuselage (not counting the upper fuselage spine area) taken just behind the intakes and going back about 3 metres, that's the 'centre barrel'. It comprises three major pieces each about a metre long and through which the air intakes run, and a few smaller pieces which form attachment points. The aircraft's forward fuselage, engine mounts, wings and mounts, fuselage fuel tanks, and undercarriage are all attached to it, so it's obviously THE key structural part of the aircraft.

Magoo has covered it pretty well, the centre barrel is the structural core of the aircraft. As Magoo points out the aircraft is built around this core and key stress points like the wings and undercarriage gain much of there strength from the CB. As such it is a fatigue prone area and the idea of CBR is to replace the CB and extend the useful life of the jet. The main problem with CBR is the scope of the mod, it has been stated that 25,000 parts are needed to complete each CBR. The job is bigger than originally thought, sound familiar? Companies promising what they can't deliver? Anyway the jet needs to be totally dismantled, including all wiring looms and then rebuilt. So you can imagine it is a huge job, and there are doubts about the workforce in Australia being unable to do it. However we should point out that if the RAAF maintenance wings had not been dismantled by the pollies than this mod could have been done in house by the skilled RAAF workforce, but hey civvys are cheaper and big business wants a part of the cake!! If they want to keep sending them to Canada that's fine by me, more trips for the techos.

Coooeeee

 

[Magoo]

I scabed this from annother forum. Its a Rhino in RAAF No.1 SQ markings. guess it shows the flexibility of the platform, note the JSOW, JDAM, AMRAAM and AIM 9X on the various hardpoints. Kind of illusitrates the benifits we enjoy with a multi-role platform, and what we've been missing with the Pig for the last 10 odd years.

Hmmm...I think that pic first appeared in Australian Aviation in the April (Avalon) issue - drawn by Juanita Franzi - I wonder if they know it's been copied onto a forum...?

 

[swerve]

Hmmm...I think that pic first appeared in Australian Aviation in the April (Avalon) issue - drawn by Juanita Franzi - I wonder if they know it's been copied onto a forum...?

This Juanita Franzi?

http://www.mmpbooks.biz/mirage_pro/The-Four-Amigos.jpg

 

[Magoo]

This Juanita Franzi?

http://www.mmpbooks.biz/mirage_pro/The-Four-Amigos.jpg

Yep - one of the best aviation artists in the world!

 

[FutureTank]

Magoo has covered it pretty well, the centre barrel is the structural core of the aircraft. As Magoo points out the aircraft is built around this core and key stress points like the wings and undercarriage gain much of there strength from the CB. As such it is a fatigue prone area and the idea of CBR is to replace the CB and extend the useful life of the jet. The main problem with CBR is the scope of the mod, it has been stated that 25,000 parts are needed to complete each CBR. The job is bigger than originally thought, sound familiar? Companies promising what they can't deliver? Anyway the jet needs to be totally dismantled, including all wiring looms and then rebuilt. So you can imagine it is a huge job, and there are doubts about the workforce in Australia being unable to do it. However we should point out that if the RAAF maintenance wings had not been dismantled by the pollies than this mod could have been done in house by the skilled RAAF workforce, but hey civvys are cheaper and big business wants a part of the cake!! If they want to keep sending them to Canada that's fine by me, more trips for the techos.

Coooeeee

I do believe that what the RAAF should do is what the Royal Navy used to do, empty the jails. There are not a few people in jails that are very capable of taking cars apart in minutes, so it should take them only hours to do this with a fighter jet
Just tell them to look for a radiator....nfloorl:

 

[Tasman]

Response from Defence to Four Corners program

The DMO site includes a reasonably detailed response and rebuttal to some of the criticisms made during the Four Corners "Flying Blind" program. It can be found using the following link:

http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/ceo/record/CACC.pdf

Apart from defending the FA-18F decision it also deals with comments re the F-111 (including the alleged flaw with the F-111C wing fatigue test), and the JSF selection process.

I think it is well worth a read.

The DMO site includes an interesting section called Correcting the Record which deals with a number of ADF procurement issues that have been raised in the media or elsewhere.

The link is:

http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/ceo/record/index.cfm

Tas