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

[barra]

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....

Don't get me started on the quality of Boeings workforce. To late.

Makes me laugh when Boeing complains they can't find enough skilled workers in Australia. Plenty of there workforce are ex RAAFies and they still have plenty to offer. In fact I remember seeing an ex 75SQN WOE in the hangar at Boeing sweeping the floor. Talk about going from the penthouse to the sh!thouse. However they make up the numbers with almost anyone with basic hand skills and a heart beat. Washing machine mechanics, Refrigeration mechanics, electricians, sheetmetal workers, handymen anyone. Put them on a few courses, and hey presto you have an Avionics Technician or Structural fitter.

Wiring looms in an aircraft is not like wiring a washing machine, you can't drill a hole wherever you like in the airframe. Working on aircraft requires an aviation background and mentality that is built up over years. It can't be taught in a couple of weeks. I have seen enough dodgy wiring, misplaced holes and found enough FOD to know that Boeings goal is not safe and serviceable aircraft but just to meet the schedule.
Thats enough for now, you get the idea?

Hooroo

 

[Tasman]

Temporary loss of air to air refuelling capability by RAAF

The retirement of one of the RAAF's two remaining Boeing 707 tankers on October 31 leaves just one in service and it is due to be retired in mid 2008. However, the first of the new KC-30B's are not due until 2009.

It concerns me that the RAAF would retire aircraft well before their replacements are ready. Hopefully there is a contingency plan in case the RAAF needs AAR in a crisis.

http://www.defence.gov.au/media/download/2007/Nov/20071101/index.htm

Tas

 

[stump1100]

Don't get me started on the quality of Boeings workforce. To late.

Makes me laugh when Boeing complains they can't find enough skilled workers in Australia. Plenty of there workforce are ex RAAFies and they still have plenty to offer. In fact I remember seeing an ex 75SQN WOE in the hangar at Boeing sweeping the floor. Talk about going from the penthouse to the sh!thouse. However they make up the numbers with almost anyone with basic hand skills and a heart beat. Washing machine mechanics, Refrigeration mechanics, electricians, sheetmetal workers, handymen anyone. Put them on a few courses, and hey presto you have an Avionics Technician or Structural fitter.

Wiring looms in an aircraft is not like wiring a washing machine, you can't drill a hole wherever you like in the airframe. Working on aircraft requires an aviation background and mentality that is built up over years. It can't be taught in a couple of weeks. I have seen enough dodgy wiring, misplaced holes and found enough FOD to know that Boeings goal is not safe and serviceable aircraft but just to meet the schedule.
Thats enough for now, you get the idea?

Hooroo

Not sure where you get your info from but it does seem to be fairly inaccurate and full of angst. It is inconceivable that a company who relies heavily on Defence Aerospace work would deliberately produce unsafe and/or unserviceable aircraft. Do you know how many ex-RAAF people Boeing employs? Do they suddenly have no pride in their work now that they work for a Defence contractor?

Sorry Mate, I'm calling "crap" on your post. Obviously there is more to it than what you have written here.

 

[Magoo]

Not sure where you get your info from but it does seem to be fairly inaccurate and full of angst. It is inconceivable that a company who relies heavily on Defence Aerospace work would deliberately produce unsafe and/or unserviceable aircraft. Do you know how many ex-RAAF people Boeing employs? Do they suddenly have no pride in their work now that they work for a Defence contractor?

Sorry Mate, I'm calling "crap" on your post. Obviously there is more to it than what you have written here.

Whoa there newby! Without revealing his credentials, I can assure you 'barra' DOES know what he's talking about, and his opinion carries weight in this room, certainly with me at least.

Plus, no where in his post does he suggest that any of the Boeing workers are "deliberately" producing unsafe aircraft, just that perhaps they're not being as careful as they could be for the sake of a deadline. I can assure you that, with almost every defence contractor, the "schedule is king" motto applies, especially as it comes from Dr Gumley himself, as that's the measurement of what they're paid the bulk of their performance incentives on!

Sorry mate, but I suggest you call "crap" on yourself for not reading his post carefully enough!

Cheers

Magoo

 

[Tasman]

Not sure where you get your info from but it does seem to be fairly inaccurate and full of angst. It is inconceivable that a company who relies heavily on Defence Aerospace work would deliberately produce unsafe and/or unserviceable aircraft. Do you know how many ex-RAAF people Boeing employs? Do they suddenly have no pride in their work now that they work for a Defence contractor?

Sorry Mate, I'm calling "crap" on your post. Obviously there is more to it than what you have written here.

Barra was certainly not having a go at ex RAAF people working with Boeing. What my reading of his post did suggest was that Boeing is not necessarily getting the best out of them and is perhaps not making appropriate use of their skills (e.g. the ex 75 Sqdn WOE cleaning floors). He also commented on the use of people with no background in aircraft maintenance in roles for which they have not been trained. Basically his post was a concern about schedules rather than safety being the driving force behind maintenance practice.

Tas

 

[stump1100]

I may be new to the forum but I don't agree with what was posted nor do I agree with the insinuation.

That being said, I will desist from any further comments.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I may be new to the forum but I don't agree with what was posted nor do I agree with the insinuation.

That being said, I will desist from any further comments.

There's nothing wrong with disagreeing with someone elses opinion - frank and robust debate contributes to the quality of that debate.

Be that as it may, Barra is in a very good position to know what he's talking about. Perhaps he's in the fortunate position that his credentials are established and that we know that he is in a position of strength to discuss a few issues re RAAF, and perhaps to you that may be a loaded base - however, that still doesn't stop you from trying to present your own case.

Withdrawing from the debate doesn't help - especially if you believe that you're in a position of strength to counter his own experience and concerns.

For what its worth, my own experience dealing with Boeing on issues of cabling, reharnessing and work allocation was less than impressive, and just like a few of the other "Primes", their size covers up some of their operational incompetence in some project areas.

Play the ball and not the player and the quality of the argument will lift - but questioning barras comment per se as being driven from a vehicle of personal issue was probably not the best way to command attention and redress what you saw as wrong.

 

[barra]

Hi stump 1100,

I stand by my comments re Boeing. I can assure you I am in an excellent position to judge from personal experience.

I should clarify that my comments were aimed at the HUG program in particular and I wasn't taking aim at the ex RAAFies that work for Boeing, quite the opposite. Those people are the people Boeing targets to employ and are uniquely skilled and qualified for the task. My comments were aimed at the people Boeing hires to make up the numbers. If you have such an intimate knowledge of Boeings operations then you will know what I am referring to.

Maybe when some of these projects start running on time and meeting the customers requirements and projected costs then people will stop criticising. Projects like Wedgetail, Vigilaire and HUG come to mind. If you are still upset by my comments, I suggest you build a bridge and get over it.

Barra

 

[Magoo]

If you are still upset by my comments, I suggest you build a bridge and get over it.

What? No 'Coooeee'??? nfloorl:

 

[barra]

What? No 'Coooeee'???

That was angry barra, I have had a bex and coke and a good lie down now.

Goes outside.
Cups hands to mouth.
"Ccccooooooeeeee"
Wakes nieghbours and scares dogs!

 

[jase1]

Hi guys, was watching a copy of Four Corners and it always amazes me that here in NZ the public in general couldnt give a toss about Defence and you never have Documentrys on TV regarding anything like what Four Corners was showing or come election time you also hear jack about defence but in OZ its a completely different story.
For countries that have so much in common Defence is one thing that we are worlds apart on.
I wish we had issues regarding Superhornet etc, the biggest debate over here is why havnt the Skyhawks sold!

 

[Viper7]

Skyhawks, though a potent fighter of its time, is really obsolete now. Countries like Israel, Singapore, Kuwait & Australia have operated the type, but are now phased out this aircraft.

If New Zealand has any chances of securing a deal on the Skyhawks, then I guess the best possible candidate would be Brazil (who bought ex-Kuwaiti Skyhawks), Argentina (bought ex-US Navy & US Marine Corps) and Indonesia (who recently re-activated the Skyhawks by buying spares after the US lifted sanction).

However, it is not clear as to whether Indonesia is still keen on operating their Skyhawks, in light of the recent procurement of Russian Su-27/30 Flankers.

Other alternatives could be private buyers, like corporations or indivisuals in America, Britain or in Europe.

 

[Tasman]

Hi guys, was watching a copy of Four Corners and it always amazes me that here in NZ the public in general couldnt give a toss about Defence and you never have Documentrys on TV regarding anything like what Four Corners was showing or come election time you also hear jack about defence but in OZ its a completely different story.
For countries that have so much in common Defence is one thing that we are worlds apart on.
I wish we had issues regarding Superhornet etc, the biggest debate over here is why havnt the Skyhawks sold!

Very good point Jase. At least our media is questioning whether the Super Hornet and JSF are the the best platforms available rather than whether we actually need the capability they will provide or the numbers of aircraft we intend to acquire.

Tas

 

[Magoo]

Skyhawks, though a potent fighter of its time, is really obsolete now. Countries like Israel, Singapore, Kuwait & Australia have operated the type, but are now phased out this aircraft.

If New Zealand has any chances of securing a deal on the Skyhawks, then I guess the best possible candidate would be Brazil (who bought ex-Kuwaiti Skyhawks), Argentina (bought ex-US Navy & US Marine Corps) and Indonesia (who recently re-activated the Skyhawks by buying spares after the US lifted sanction).

However, it is not clear as to whether Indonesia is still keen on operating their Skyhawks, in light of the recent procurement of Russian Su-27/30 Flankers.

Other alternatives could be private buyers, like corporations or indivisuals in America, Britain or in Europe.

There's a company in the US called ATSI which provides adversary and target tug duties to US and visiting air forces, much like BAE does in Europe. They have bought up a whole lot of ex-Israeli and USMC A-4s and want the NZ jets as well, but the US State Dept is playing hardball in releasing the jets for sale because NZ won't allow nuclear armed or powered ships into its ports - plain and simple.

The jets have plenty of hours left, have F-16-like cockpits and the APG-66 radar, and are therefore quite potent second tier fighters.

Cheers

Magoo

 

[ELP]

CBR as Magoo and others have pointed out, a very difficult job. USN spending color-of-money X on this is now being used in part as fodder for more Super sales to the USN.

Here is some fun history on how CBR came about.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3834/is_200104/ai_n8933946

Somebody looked at that one-off event and ran with it.

Awarding the airframe more flying hours without doing a CBR will in the end mean flight envelope restrictions. It will be interesting to see how that pans out.

 

[Magoo]

CBR as Magoo and others have pointed out, a very difficult job. USN spending color-of-money X on this is now being used in part as fodder for more Super sales to the USN.

Here is some fun history on how CBR came about.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3834/is_200104/ai_n8933946

Somebody looked at that one-off event and ran with it.

Awarding the airframe more flying hours without doing a CBR will in the end mean flight envelope restrictions. It will be interesting to see how that pans out.

Yeah, I read that article when I was researching my book, but the actual numbers of Hornets they'll do CBRs on will never reach 312...will be lucky to reach 100 at the current rate!

 

[howa308]

Gday first post here.

I was wondering if anyone knows if the RAAF has expressed interest in the FB-22 concept if the US developed it.
Would this aircraft if developed not tick every box a make everyone happy eg.Carl Kopp.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Gday first post here.

I was wondering if anyone knows if the RAAF has expressed interest in the FB-22 concept if the US developed it.
Would this aircraft if developed not tick every box a make everyone happy eg.Carl Kopp.

Not so far I shouldn't think. It's been cancelled for a start and even if resurrected we're not even allowed to acquire F-22A, just like everyone else.

Why should the FB-22 be any different?

 

[howa308]

Wishfill thinking on my part.
But i hope we either have long range strike aircraft in the future, or f-35bs for the LHD.

 

[rjmaz1]

The F-35 will be our long range strike aircraft.

Flying slow and high with its stealth it will hit all the targets that the F-111 could. The F-111 will use up most of its fuel trying to evade enemy detection with full afterburner.

If the F-35 is cancelled we are pretty much fucked. The Suepr Hornet to penetrate enemy airspace would have to fly around hotspots and use require afterburners to fight its way through. In the real world strike mission the F-35 may have twice the combat radius of the Super Hornet. Thats a massive difference. If the F-35 required one inflight refuelign stop the Super Hornets would need 3 which would be a heavy load for our tankers.

If the F-35 was cancelled we would be guranteed to get the F-22 in small numbers.

This all of a sudden brings back memories of Carlo Kopps Evolved F-111 and F-22 combat mix. The F-22's leading the way would allow for the F-111 to fly at high altitude eliminating the need for inflight refueling and allowing it to carry more bombs. The F-111 would be one of the few bombers that could keep pace with the F-22 which would be an excellent combo. Even if the F-111's had only very basic upgrades the F-22 combination would be great.

However this idea was destryed once the F-22 was declared not for sale. If the F-35 was cancelled it would probably be too late to resurrect the F-111. So we'd end up with a combination of F-22's and Super Hornets which is also good. The Super Hornets providing anti-ship, tanker escort and close air support while the F-22's provide air dominance and precision strike. Theres no point having F-22's escorting tankers 300 miles away from the front line, their speed and stealth isn't required. The Super Hornets would compliment the F-22's nicely.