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

[barra]

Hey guys, I'm 14, and Since about the age of 6, i have always wanted to become a pilot in the RAAF.

I am a member of the AAL (Australian Air League) so I have a somewhat broad understanding of the workings of aircraft, their functions, etc. I have also been flying simulators since the age of 9, and as of last year, I was actually lucky enough to go to the Qantas base in Mascot and successfully land the "Classic" 747, without any assistance from the instructor (I hate to toot my own horn here).

My reason for posting this is I wanted to ask the question, exactly what should I do in order to join the RAAF as an Officer/Pilot, as far as I am aware, I end up at ADFA (Australian Defence Force Academy) and do a course (which I am unsure what, and how long for). Then after I basically go to 1FTS, then 2FTS etc. etc.

This is as far as I have gotten, can someone please fill in the gaps for me, and tell me what I should do, as the Australian Defence Force website is not very helpful.

Thanks in Advance.

Hi mate,

The way I understand pilot training these days your choice of service may not be up to you. For example if you join the Air Force and complete your initial training successfully but Army and/or Navy require chopper pilots then this is where you may end up. By the same token Army and Navy student pilots who show the right aptitude may be offered RAAF fast jet training in lieu of the rotary systems they joined up for. I know of at least one Navy pilot that transferred to the RAAF to fly Hornets, only Hornet pilot I have ever seen with a full beard, and recently an Army pilot at 76SQN flying Hawks.

So what I am saying is that even though you join X service you may end up at Y service depending on ADF requirements at the time. Anyway , best of luck for the future.

Barra

 

[AGRA]

The Army guys were flying Hawk LIFTs as preparation for Tiger ARHs (tandem seats, glass cockpit, weapons, high performance – all things you don’t get on a Kiowa, Chinook or Black Hawk), it is not a permanent arrangement. Plus the army is interested in army staff officers who can fly, not pilots who can wear green uniforms. RMC comes first, then ADF Helicopter Aircrew School.

For “airforcehopefull” I would recommend you leave the air league and join the Australian Air Force Cadets (formerly AIRTC). This will actually put you inside the ADF system and expose you to a lot more about the air force than just stuff about aircraft.

Secondly if you want to be an air force pilot in this day and age you should focus less on actual flying and more on warfighting. Read a few books on the practice of air combat, stuff from WW2 and so on. Start studying and thinking about what goes on in air war.

One of the best forms of training for war is actually sports. Get involved in a local sporting team. This will help a lot with developing leadership and team player skills that will be big pluses on your application and also help during your training.

Just about anyone can learn to fly and the air force is pretty good at teaching that. But the new pilot training system that you would train on when you are older is being designed to focus more on early teaching of air combat skills. Not everyone can fly a plane while planning and fighting a battle in four dimensions. This is the job description of an air force pilot.

 

[McTaff]

Airforcehopeful:

Some good advice here in the previous posts.

Sporting, Air Cadets, positions of leadership and LOADS of study are your ticket. When you are old enough, get a job, work on getting to a supervisory role and save your pennies. Use that money to begin getting your civilian pilots license.

Having those five things are the basic building blocks to becoming an ADF pilot.

As for Direct Entry vs. ADFA:

You will be flying earlier if you go Direct Entry.
You essentially do your Service Officer Course (Air Force will be at East Sale, Navy at HMAS CRESWELL, and Army at RMC Duntroon.), then you will wait for BFTS at Tamworth. After that, Air Force and Navy scoot over to Pearce and 2FTS, and Army go and start playing with choppers. Depending on type of Officer entry, you'll spend anywhere from 6 to 18 months at your Service, then you'll be a few months until sent to Tamworth.

As for ADFA, it depends on which Service you are chosen for. If Navy, you'll go to CRESWELL, and do six months. Then you have to wait until the following January to go to ADFA, complete your degree, and then you'll be sent to BFTS after that. I believe Army and Air Force send their OFFCDTs to ADFA first up, and round them out afterwards.

ADFA graduates seem like they have a rank advantage, but it doesn't quite work out that way - in effect the time spent at ADFA offsets this rank bonus. As a second year Navy Direct Entry Officer, the ADFA graduates are only a year ahead on the promotion scale. I believe they may get another promotion one year earlier than the DE Officer on the next cycle, but the net effect would only be a two-year advantage, versus the years spent at ADFA.

In effect means that although you outrank those people you work with who are DE by a year or two - however the people who joined as DE at the time you were accepted into ADFA and were inducted at around the same time are two years ahead of you with respect to their actual career position. (i.e. you'd be starting your qualification training, while they are nearing the end of it.) You'd never actually 'overtake' these people until your get to O-5 level, which where you'd be competing for promotion, and only if you can land a promotion and they cannot.

Probably doesn't make sense at first, but you'll understand in time.

 

[Sheqel]

The Rudd government is asking Defence Department officials to prepare a detailed analysis of the Super Hornets deal. There is a possibility that they will re-negotiate the contract, or even scrap it completely.

Full story is on The Age website.

 

[111Lover]

The Rudd government is asking Defence Department officials to prepare a detailed analysis of the Super Hornets deal. There is a possibility that they will re-negotiate the contract, or even scrap it completely.

Full story is on The Age website.

I doubt it, the Minister has already said that the Super Hornet needs to be "part of the mix". Even if they could, it would be unwise IMHO, as the Super Hornet will be the most advanced strike fighter in the region in the near future.

 

[Aussie Digger]

The Rudd government is asking Defence Department officials to prepare a detailed analysis of the Super Hornets deal. There is a possibility that they will re-negotiate the contract, or even scrap it completely.

Full story is on The Age website.

Good. Perhaps when the Super Hornet and F-35 are confirmed by the current Government the current pointless "debate" can actually move onto something constructive?

I have no doubts both aircraft WILL be confirmed.

 

[Tasman]

Good. Perhaps when the Super Hornet and F-35 are confirmed by the current Government the current pointless "debate" can actually move onto something constructive?

I have no doubts both aircraft WILL be confirmed.

I think a review should be a good thing as it may get the whole process out into the open so that the RAAF/ADF case is properly reported rather than just opinions from particular interest groups or self proclaimed experts. Like you I expect a thorough review will confirm both the SH and F-35A as part of the future RAAF's order of battle.

Tas

 

[sunderer]

This is a way for the new government to show the ADF who is boss to a degree.I had a conversation with someone two weeks ago who is very comfortable with a review and the opportunity to show the new DEFMIN why they made the decision they did, he certainly doesnt expect it to change.

 

[McTaff]

This is a way for the new government to show the ADF who is boss to a degree.I had a conversation with someone two weeks ago who is very comfortable with a review and the opportunity to show the new DEFMIN why they made the decision they did, he certainly doesnt expect it to change.

Actually, the problem isn't the gov't showing the ADF who is boss. The real thing we need to develop is a process for defining targets for equipment, and setting up two or more independent reviewing groups made up of knowledgeable people who can properly decide what does and does not meet the requirements, and to make an separate recommendations.

Then the gov't had a first and second opinion. Then we need to make sure some bureaucrat, organisation or department can't decide to choose something else without a seriously good reason - and even then the only thing to do is to re-open the contract evaluation process again.

That is the trouble we are having across the whole defence force:
Projects that change far too much from inception and rendering the choice irrelevant,
Projects that have recommendations that are ignored or twisted or even subverted in some way,
Decisions being made without any evaluation process to begin with, and;
Projects that take 'whoever is left in the running' rather than evaluating whether it is a suitable recommendation.

That is a pretty bold statement, but that seems to be what is plaguing the procurement process to begin with.

The ADF itself needs to set up two different assessors for each project, because two different and independent groups having to justify their decision will mean that in the end there will be more detailed information to look at regarding the choice to be made. And if everything fails to meet the requirements, the ADF needs to be able to go back to the drawing board and start the whole project outline again and make sure the targets are still the same - if the targets change, then start the whole process again.

 

[sunderer]

Sorry but I think this review is nothing more than political point scoring.

 

[irtusk]

or an interim strike capability, how about the Nighthawk?

- stealthier than the F-111
- the US is soon retiring their entire fleet
- if the US were inclined to sell, it would probably be at super discount prices
- afaik the retirements are simply because they have better options (B-2 + F-22), not that the airframes themselves are worn out
- better range than the SH
- while the stealth coatings would be more maintenance intensive, i believe as a whole (engines, fuel tanks, fuel economy, etc) they will be FAR cheaper to run and maintain than the F-111

the pilot training program was shut down in 2006(?), otherwise it is still very much active so wouldn't be much restoration work

as far as technology transfer issues, well it is OLD plus it has already been compromised with that downed frame in kosovo

 

[Capt. Picard]

I am glad that the review is underway. This is nothing to do with political point scoring, the facts are that there is enough concern for the Minister to actually do his job and look at what he is presiding over. Given the Howard govt. unusually close relationship to the US it is not unreasonable to want to check the programs that were in themselves obviously political eg.the Super Hornet deal. Other programs are clearly having problems, such as the Frigate upgrade and Wedgetail - if I were a Minister doing his job quickly and effectively I would order a review. We should be glad this is happening to allow us to get the best capability for our money.

 

[sunderer]

Yes that is a ministers job I agree, however it also makes it easier for the present labor government to then turn around and start choping things under the excuse the previous government had acted improperly. I dont trust labor on defence despite the rhetoric they have spouted.

 

[Magoo]

or an interim strike capability, how about the Nighthawk?

- stealthier than the F-111
- the US is soon retiring their entire fleet
- if the US were inclined to sell, it would probably be at super discount prices
- afaik the retirements are simply because they have better options (B-2 + F-22), not that the airframes themselves are worn out
- better range than the SH
- while the stealth coatings would be more maintenance intensive, i believe as a whole (engines, fuel tanks, fuel economy, etc) they will be FAR cheaper to run and maintain than the F-111

the pilot training program was shut down in 2006(?), otherwise it is still very much active so wouldn't be much restoration work

as far as technology transfer issues, well it is OLD plus it has already been compromised with that downed frame in kosovo

Oh geez...here we go...are you RJMAZ1 by another name? nfloorl:

The F-117 airframes are not worn out, although they are all between 22 and 27 years old. They are being retired because the aircraft are amongst the highest MM/FH hogs in the USAF.

There is no industry or infrastructure established in Australia for the maintenance and support of low 1st generation low-observable materials.

The F-117 has less range than a Super Hornet, does not carry AAMs for self-defence, has little onboard ESM, and can not be expected to maneouvre out of trouble if caught in the daylight. This is why it is ONLY used at night by the USAF.

Otherwise, they'd be perfect...

Magoo

 

[Magoo]

Talking about project reviews etc...

If you were the new Australian Defence Minister and you had to review projects they were currently in trouble, what would you dump, and what would you keep?

Let's try to keep the answers to somewhat educated ones rather than based on something someone has read on wiki or on brand/product loyalty.

For mine, I'd dump Seasprite and buy one squadron of MH-60Rs immediately, and then another one in 2012 to replace the Seahawks.

I'd persist with FFG-UP only because there is no alternative available immediately or in the medium term.

Wedgetail is coming good and will be awesome, as will the tankers if they can get the boom to work, although I'd like to see at least one more Wedgetail and two or three more tankers (yeah I know, we have crew shortages...don't get me started on that).

The Caribous proved in PNG Assist that there is still nothing out there that can do what they can do...except perhaps V-22. We need to get inside that program and do a full assessment of the Osprey... which I suspect may be happening anyway.

I'd dump HUG Phase 3.2 (centre-barrels), expand on Phase 3.1 work, and buy an additional 24 Super Hornets. This takes further risk out of HUG, allows the oldest classic airframes to be parked as they time-expire, and adds additional capability through the early to middle part of next decade.

It's still too early to tell with F-35 - if the flight test program and systems integration goes to plan, then the aircraft will be a good one, although there is so much risk remaining in the program that we should probably push the decision date back to the end of 2009 and the introduction of the first unit to 2015.

Cheers

Magoo

 

[phreeky]

Would appreciate any info...

Wedgetail is coming good and will be awesome, as will the tankers if they can get the boom to work

Are they having exceptional problems, or just normal troubleshooting/testing etc?

The Caribous proved in PNG Assist that there is still nothing out there that can do what they can do...except perhaps V-22.

Is it the "toughness" of the undercarriage, the low-speed capabilities, or general reliability/simplicity in harsh conditions that makes it so hard to find a replacement?

I'd dump HUG Phase 3.2 (centre-barrels), expand on Phase 3.1 work, and buy an additional 24 Super Hornets.

What's the progress of the CBR work?

 

[Aussie Digger]

Talking about project reviews etc...

If you were the new Australian Defence Minister and you had to review projects they were currently in trouble, what would you dump, and what would you keep?

Let's try to keep the answers to somewhat educated ones rather than based on something someone has read on wiki or on brand/product loyalty.

For mine, I'd dump Seasprite and buy one squadron of MH-60Rs immediately, and then another one in 2012 to replace the Seahawks.

I'd persist with FFG-UP only because there is no alternative available immediately or in the medium term.

Wedgetail is coming good and will be awesome, as will the tankers if they can get the boom to work, although I'd like to see at least one more Wedgetail and two or three more tankers (yeah I know, we have crew shortages...don't get me started on that).

The Caribous proved in PNG Assist that there is still nothing out there that can do what they can do...except perhaps V-22. We need to get inside that program and do a full assessment of the Osprey... which I suspect may be happening anyway.

I'd dump HUG Phase 3.2 (centre-barrels), expand on Phase 3.1 work, and buy an additional 24 Super Hornets. This takes further risk out of HUG, allows the oldest classic airframes to be parked as they time-expire, and adds additional capability through the early to middle part of next decade.

It's still too early to tell with F-35 - if the flight test program and systems integration goes to plan, then the aircraft will be a good one, although there is so much risk remaining in the program that we should probably push the decision date back to the end of 2009 and the introduction of the first unit to 2015.

Cheers

Magoo

I pretty much agree, though if additional Rhino's are to be acquired, I think the opportunity to acquire Growler should be chosen as well. As our main strike aircraft for a longer period, it could probably do with some EW assistance as future threats develop, in the outer years of the planned project...

I can't imagine RAAF signing up for up to 48x Super Hornets and then only maintaining them until 2023...

FFG-UP has to be maintained simply because there is nothing else suitable around to replace it, AFAIK. AWD's are scheduled to start arriving in 2013. I think a 4th should be acquired to allow one for one replacement of the FFG's.

To cover any gap in the meantime, ANZAC anti-ship missile defence should be pursued as a priority and possibly expanded to cover the "hole" left by any further delays in FFG-UP. I think the "2nd layer" CIWS/SAM system should be included.

Wedgetail and KC-30B should be continued and KC-30B's accepted into limited service as soon as possible, so we can still use their hose and drogue capability, until the boom is sorted out and they can be released to full operational capability.

I would persist with Seasprite, too much cash has been spent and it's too close to an operational capability to dump now, IMHO. If Kaman are to be believed, the remaining issue is ADF's certification practices rather than the aircraft's capability. If so, it seems pointless to dump than now. The only reason I'd persist is to allow the NH-90 maritime helicopter time to develop, sufficiently to meet Australia's needs. If it proves a capable helicopter, commonality with our MRH-90's would be a worthwhile goal.

I agree with CBR being dropped. I always prefer the higher capability where possible, though buying another 24x Rhino's would be more expensive, it'd give greater overall capability too.

Can 2x legacy Hornet Squadrons be maintained through "discrete" structural modifications though, Magoo?

Re: the Caribou, I'd suspect that the Chinook could do the work of the Caribou, if we had enough of them. I'd rather a larger Chinook fleet, than investment in the hideously expensive and rather limited V-22. It's forward speed and range are it's only real advantage over a Chinook. It's payload does not even come close...

As with the Bugs/Rhinos there are different ways to overcome range issues and to that extent I'd like to see some KC-130J-30 acquired to a) replace the C-130H aircraft along with C-17 and b) to provide a helo inflight refuelling capability...

I agree with the F-35 proposal, though I personally believe it will be a superior combat aircraft in years to come and vastly superior to anything else we CAN get in every role...

 

[Magoo]

Are they having exceptional problems, or just normal troubleshooting/testing etc?

A few troubles, but they and the RAAF are confident they can be overcome.

KC-30B's accepted into limited service as soon as possible, so we can still use their hose and drogue capability, until the boom is sorted out and they can be released to full operational capability.

This has been raised as a possibility, however my most recent info is that the boom will be more or less ready by the time the first aircraft enteres service in early 2009.

As with the Bugs/Rhinos there are different ways to overcome range issues and to that extent I'd like to see some KC-130J-30 acquired to a) replace the C-130H aircraft along with C-17 and b) to provide a helo inflight refuelling capability...

There was alot of talk about KC-130Js around Avalon last year, however this appears to have gone off the boil due to ongoing support issues with the RAAF's existing 12 C-130Js from Lockheed Martin.

Is it the "toughness" of the undercarriage, the low-speed capabilities, or general reliability/simplicity in harsh conditions that makes it so hard to find a replacement?

It's the aircraft's continuing reliability, and its rough and short field capability.

What's the progress of the CBR work?

This has been discussed in detail in this and other forums, but in brief, there are some production related issues surrounding this phase which will be difficult for the RAAF to overcome, i.e. a lack of parts and a skilled workforce.

I would persist with Seasprite, too much cash has been spent and it's too close to an operational capability to dump now, IMHO. If Kaman are to be believed, the remaining issue is ADF's certification practices rather than the aircraft's capability. If so, it seems pointless to dump than now. The only reason I'd persist is to allow the NH-90 maritime helicopter time to develop, sufficiently to meet Australia's needs. If it proves a capable helicopter, commonality with our MRH-90's would be a worthwhile goal.

Unfortunately, what Kaman says and what the DMO says are currently still world's apart. The ADf says, at best case, IOC won't be until 2011, and FOC 2013...more than three and five years away respectively.

I don't believe, in this day of deep and 'shallow' contractor support that commonality is such an issue, as the ADF is no longer required to maintain warehouses full of spares nor as large a trained air force.

AWD's are scheduled to start arriving in 2013. I think a 45th should be acquired to allow one for one replacement of the FFG's.

I'm not so sure about a 45th AWD... , but a 4th one would certainly be welcomed and from all reports, is likely. Watch also for a 3rd LHD.

Can 2x legacy Hornet Squadrons be maintained through "discrete" structural modifications though, Magoo?

That's something you'd need to ask an engineer familiar with the aircraft and the program. However, Canada suspended its CBR program last year and has re-certified its CF-18s for 9000 hours with ongoing structural upgrades, sleeving, blending etc. Ours are currently certified for 6000 hours but will be re-barrelled before reaching the 4800 hour mark.

For two operational classic squadrons, I suspect you'd need about 48 jets including at least 10 'Tubs', or perhaps as few as 40 if you moved the OCU work in-house to the squadrons.

Cheers

Magoo

 

[Capt. Picard]

I dont trust labor on defence despite the rhetoric they have spouted.

Huh? Remember that attenuated discussion on who pulled Australia through 2 world wars?

 

[alexsa]

Huh? Remember that attenuated discussion on who pulled Australia through 2 world wars?

This is a glib and inaccurate statement.

In regards to WWII I don't know if their subseviant attitiude with MacAuthur and persistance with Blamey exactly heaped glory on our military effort or made it more effective. A degree of good fortune smiled on Australia in the 1940's given our state of unprepareness. Both the ALP and Liberals were responsible for the wind down of the military between the wars. But rebuilding started with the Liberals (albeit very late) noting the Curtin goverment did not take power until October 1941 jsut prior to Pearl Harbour. As an example the CAC was established by the Lyons government in 19335/36 and if this infrastrusture had not been put in place then the subsequent aircarft building would ahve been jeopodised. In respect of WWII both Liberala nd labour deserve a share of the credit and criticism for our performace.

In regards to the WWI suggest a reading of "the Great War" by Les Carlyon would be useful as it was not so much Labour as Billy Hughs and willing politians. labour opposed many of the measure proposed by Hughs (conscription being the most volititle) while the Liberals supported them. In fact the NSW Labour party expelled Hughs before the first Referendum for Conscription. As a result the Labour government fell apart and the country when to the polls in May 1917 and Hughs and a Nationalist Government took powers.

In both wars our soldiers, sailors and airman (and supporting arms) are those that deserve the credit. If the 2/14, 2/16 and 39th Batallions (and the redoubtable Brigadier Potts) had been less determined on the Kokoda track then life would have been very different for Australia. The fact that Labour allowed Potts to be sacked by Blamey after a very good performace in this action certainly does not give them credit.

Finally I was in the military during the Hawke/Keating and have to say they deserve a large degree of criticism for the situation with repsect to a number of our major platforms and ther performaces was hardly stellar.

In short give thanks for the troops.