Royal Australian Air Force [RAAF] News, Discussions and Updates
F-111 question - what's this on the pylon
At the recent Brisbane Riverfire dump and burn, the F-111 had something attached to one of its pylons. Can anyone identify what it is? Here is a picture I found of what it looked like. Its' the white thing on the inner starboard pylon.
Many thanks.
At the recent Brisbane Riverfire dump and burn, the F-111 had something attached to one of its pylons. Can anyone identify what it is? Here is a picture I found of what it looked like. Its' the white thing on the inner starboard pylon.
Many thanks.
SUU-20 practice bomb and rocket dispenser.At the recent Brisbane Riverfire dump and burn, the F-111 had something attached to one of its pylons. Can anyone identify what it is? Here is a picture I found of what it looked like. Its' the white thing on the inner starboard pylon.
Many thanks.
Wow, that was quick. Thanks for that!
JoeMcFriday
New Member
RAAF Investigates Loss of Air Combat Maneuvering Pod from F/A-18
Posted by David Hughes at 9/4/2008 9:16 AM CDT
The Royal Australian Air Force has begun an investigation into why an Air Combat Manoeuvring Instrumentation (ACMI) Pod separated from an RAAF F/A-18 aircraft in flight on August 29, 2008. The pod came off the aircraft at approximately 10.40 am in a sparsely populated area between Merriwa and Bylong, while it was conducting air combat maneuvering.
From Aviation Week.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blog...79a7Post:7e59e1b7-e0ea-4b3f-a4c6-4c8f4a30e2e5
I guess I don't read the daily papers enough, I must have missed this. Did anyone see a it reported?
Cheers,
Mac
Posted by David Hughes at 9/4/2008 9:16 AM CDT
The Royal Australian Air Force has begun an investigation into why an Air Combat Manoeuvring Instrumentation (ACMI) Pod separated from an RAAF F/A-18 aircraft in flight on August 29, 2008. The pod came off the aircraft at approximately 10.40 am in a sparsely populated area between Merriwa and Bylong, while it was conducting air combat maneuvering.
From Aviation Week.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blog...79a7Post:7e59e1b7-e0ea-4b3f-a4c6-4c8f4a30e2e5
I guess I don't read the daily papers enough, I must have missed this. Did anyone see a it reported?
Cheers,
Mac
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
It was announced on the DoD's website shortly after it happened...
Another example why we shouldn't rely on the "media" to relay things that are happening, particularly defence related because they generally don't have the FIRST clue as to what they are talking about...
JoeMcFriday
New Member
AD,
Thanks for that answer, I agree with your comments re. the mass 'media'. I was actually being sarcastic towards the dailies in the post, I just wasn't pointed enough. LOL
Still, I should have checked the DOD website myself instead of relying on the e-mail list, though I did get the message the 'body in a tree' in PNG was a moss covered fallen branch. Priorities.
Cheers,
Mac
Thanks for that answer, I agree with your comments re. the mass 'media'. I was actually being sarcastic towards the dailies in the post, I just wasn't pointed enough. LOL
Still, I should have checked the DOD website myself instead of relying on the e-mail list, though I did get the message the 'body in a tree' in PNG was a moss covered fallen branch. Priorities.
Cheers,
Mac
two intersting articals about the AUS Air force
Sept 4/08: Australia has initially decide to replace 49 center barrel sections in its Hornet fleet, and has already begun the process. In parallel, however, it also ran a full scale fatigue testing program for removed center barrel sections, courtesy of Australia’s DSTO, QinetiQ-Aerostructures, and Fortburn. The Hon. Warren Snowdon MP, Australia’s Minister for Defence Science and Personnel under Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon, announced that in light of this testing:
”...the actual life of the Hornet centre barrels is 10%, or 2 years, greater than originally certified…. These findings are thanks to Australia’s internationally recognised world-leading expertise in testing and managing ageing aircraft, and is the result of decades of experience developing this capability.”
In response, Australia’s center barrel replacement program may drop from 49 aircraft to 10, a move that would save up to A$ 400 million (currently about $330 million) and leave more aircraft available for missions.
intersting that their planning to cut the Aus HUG upgrade
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/f18-hornets-keeping-em-flying-02816/#more-2816
ept 4/08: It’s officially over. The contract’s cancellation is announced by Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon:
“Since contract award, Boeing Australia and its subcontractors have experienced a range of technical issues making it increasingly difficult to deliver the full scope of the contract within a timeframe acceptable to Defence. With a Defence imperative to field a TUAV capability as soon as possible, and the potential for a number of lower risk alternative systems, the DMO and Boeing Australia have agreed to terminate the contract on mutually acceptable terms…. This decisive action will enable Defence to focus on the earliest acquisition of an alternative TUAV to meet the JP129 requirement.
....The Australian Army will continue to use the Scan Eagle UAV that is currently in service in the Middle East. As part of the agreement to terminate, Boeing will refund to Defence the $6 million they have been paid to date under the contract.”
I didn't know which service had most of the UAV's under control and presumed it was the air force
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com...alias-jp129-contract-updated-01620/#more-1620
Sept 4/08: Australia has initially decide to replace 49 center barrel sections in its Hornet fleet, and has already begun the process. In parallel, however, it also ran a full scale fatigue testing program for removed center barrel sections, courtesy of Australia’s DSTO, QinetiQ-Aerostructures, and Fortburn. The Hon. Warren Snowdon MP, Australia’s Minister for Defence Science and Personnel under Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon, announced that in light of this testing:
”...the actual life of the Hornet centre barrels is 10%, or 2 years, greater than originally certified…. These findings are thanks to Australia’s internationally recognised world-leading expertise in testing and managing ageing aircraft, and is the result of decades of experience developing this capability.”
In response, Australia’s center barrel replacement program may drop from 49 aircraft to 10, a move that would save up to A$ 400 million (currently about $330 million) and leave more aircraft available for missions.
intersting that their planning to cut the Aus HUG upgrade
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/f18-hornets-keeping-em-flying-02816/#more-2816
ept 4/08: It’s officially over. The contract’s cancellation is announced by Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon:
“Since contract award, Boeing Australia and its subcontractors have experienced a range of technical issues making it increasingly difficult to deliver the full scope of the contract within a timeframe acceptable to Defence. With a Defence imperative to field a TUAV capability as soon as possible, and the potential for a number of lower risk alternative systems, the DMO and Boeing Australia have agreed to terminate the contract on mutually acceptable terms…. This decisive action will enable Defence to focus on the earliest acquisition of an alternative TUAV to meet the JP129 requirement.
....The Australian Army will continue to use the Scan Eagle UAV that is currently in service in the Middle East. As part of the agreement to terminate, Boeing will refund to Defence the $6 million they have been paid to date under the contract.”
I didn't know which service had most of the UAV's under control and presumed it was the air force
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com...alias-jp129-contract-updated-01620/#more-1620
Please inform us where you heard this because I can assure you it's most certainly not the case.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
It was on the DoD website a while back. There were most definitely 3x aircraft deployed for a while.
If it has dropped back down to 2, I wouldn't be surprised...
Sorry, didn't mean that to sound rude. There has never been 3 operational AP-3Cs there though, hercs have chopped and changed a bit and might be what you read.
Sorry to interrupt the thread, just got a question that perplexed me...
I caught the 4Corners show about the SH purchase, now regardless of what you thought of the show it seemed to me to make an assumption that I would query. It predicated that planes would fly from mainland Australia and return to mainland Australia. This would mean quite some distance flying. Australia however has a territorial possesion quite a deal closer to the hypothetical target, which has an airport which could presumeably land aircraft that were designed to land on aircraft carriers and would totally change the fuel requirement for the mission and negate the need for air to air refueling. (Pointed out as a major issue on the show.)
On a side issue to that point, wouldn't it would be useful to offer the creation of a training base for Singapore, presumeably could be handled under 5 Powers arrangments (so no need for a new treaty). We got a base that could be converted if needed and a second runway on a strategic asset. They get a training base not far from home based in a reliable ally, from which planes could be flown directly back to Singapore if needed. (Given the histrical and ethnic makeup of the island's population, I would presume it wouldn't cause too many problems)
Sorry total novice in terms of defence thinking, so I apologize if this seems a poor suggestion, it just stricks me as an obvious solution if we no longer have planes that could fly the whole way without refuelling.
I caught the 4Corners show about the SH purchase, now regardless of what you thought of the show it seemed to me to make an assumption that I would query. It predicated that planes would fly from mainland Australia and return to mainland Australia. This would mean quite some distance flying. Australia however has a territorial possesion quite a deal closer to the hypothetical target, which has an airport which could presumeably land aircraft that were designed to land on aircraft carriers and would totally change the fuel requirement for the mission and negate the need for air to air refueling. (Pointed out as a major issue on the show.)
On a side issue to that point, wouldn't it would be useful to offer the creation of a training base for Singapore, presumeably could be handled under 5 Powers arrangments (so no need for a new treaty). We got a base that could be converted if needed and a second runway on a strategic asset. They get a training base not far from home based in a reliable ally, from which planes could be flown directly back to Singapore if needed. (Given the histrical and ethnic makeup of the island's population, I would presume it wouldn't cause too many problems)
Sorry total novice in terms of defence thinking, so I apologize if this seems a poor suggestion, it just stricks me as an obvious solution if we no longer have planes that could fly the whole way without refuelling.
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
G'day mate, welcome to the forums.
That's not a dumb question at all. I assume your referring to Christmas island? The problem with that is its awfully exposed, very close to the "threat" nation and AFAIK has no military infrastructure at all. Building the stuff you would need to turn the air port into an effective base of offensives air operations would probably be noticed by the "bad guys" wouldn't it? A very antagonistic action for a government who's predecessors balked at equipping the RAN with Tomahawks for the same reason. Militarizing CI would only be aimed at one nation. Not to mention the logistical problems with operating that far from the mainland.
Anyway AAR is not a huge issue if you have the assets. US strategic air power hit targets in Serbia and Iraq operating from the continental US before, you think the RAAF will have trouble hitting Jakarta from Tindal? No way. Take everything you heard from that particular episode with a pinch of salt.
1st, you would have to include them in any conflict we had with the Indo's (were not that close)
2nd logistically we would be separated by thousands of NM's of enemy airspace.
3rd they can make the trip from Tindal just fine anyway.
Basically its a heap of trouble for little gain and logistical/political complication when we can operate just fine from continental Aus.
The only problem with that last line is those aircraft that can fly all the way without refueling are so electronically primitive that they can not survive in the current threat environment without a fighter escort. Therefore they will have to wait while the fighters use AAR which have less range than the Rhino which can self escort. So in real terms (i.e. the one that matters) the PiG has less operational range than the Rhino and is more dependent on AAR. Anyways AAR is not a dirty word and its not something we should try and avoid using like the plague.
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
I might as well ask the question. I know the F-18E/F is going to be a more potent weapon then the F-111C (its only about 40 years younger), and that while it has a smaller unrefueled range, that that is what what AAR is for.
My questions is, how many F-18E/F's can you maintain for the same budget that you can maintain the current F-111's from? Pointing out that parts for the F-111 are no longer manufactured and that any replacements that are not available must be manufactured on a one off basis, compared to the F-18 where everything can just be bought off the shelf as the aircraft is still in production. Of course you can then add in the fact that things on the F-111's are going to break more often due to age.
My questions is, how many F-18E/F's can you maintain for the same budget that you can maintain the current F-111's from? Pointing out that parts for the F-111 are no longer manufactured and that any replacements that are not available must be manufactured on a one off basis, compared to the F-18 where everything can just be bought off the shelf as the aircraft is still in production. Of course you can then add in the fact that things on the F-111's are going to break more often due to age.
Quite a few spares can be easily and cheaply obtained for the F111's from the boneyard, so from that perspective they are still fairly 'cheap' to run. The electronic components have been modernised on a bit of an ad hoc basis, most of the gear in the planes is now specific to our airframes so that means spares cannot be obtained from the boneyard. But being an older airframe you'd expect a significantly higher maintenance requirement.
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
The F-111's are full of parts made from or containing asbestos. When those parts break they cannot be replaced by boneyard obtained spares due to OH&S issues. Replacement parts then have to be redesigned and constructed on a one-off basis to replace those parts.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/natio...1197740090758.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
Ozzy Blizzard,
Your articles were great, (although I'd be interested in a bit more on the "growlers" capabilities and how that fits in with the overall EW, although since they are still awaiting US approval it is only a hypothetical).
Kev has just publicly declared we are in a regional arms race. Surely islands are unsinkable air craft carriers (harder to sink than a HLD) and the government is responsible for the defence of all its territories not just mainland Oz. In terms of seaborn invasion given the difficulties that even overhwelming forces generally have with this type of operation, a couple of Collins'es stationed nearby would make it a risky enterprise. Surely forcing a foreign force to have to neutralize CI first would delay invasion (giving time for external assistance to arrive) and weaken them.
Surely quite a bit could be done to pre-militalarize the island. We have built a vastly over spec and under utilized detention centre. We have the planned space launch deal (that has and probably will never going to get off the ground), which is a great opportunity to put in some top of the range radar to track those rockets.
Under ground fuel tanks, fire fighting services and some well built straight highways.
Joint Quad (Aus, US, Jap Ind) exercises around CI, to get an idea of what it would take etc...
CI isn't just about a forward base against our most likely adversy, it is in range of the most important regional area, the Straits of Malacca.
As for Singapore, maybe we should be seeking to build closer bridges. Unlike our current closest regional "ally" NZ, they are at least willing to put money into their defence, maintain an airforce (this is an airforce thread), navy etc. (Maybe I should find or start a thread on the "NZ" part of Anzus, I can see what they get but I as a novice to defence thinking I'm not really sure what we get! (Except some well trained peace keepers to help whoever invades us to keep the peace!))
Your articles were great, (although I'd be interested in a bit more on the "growlers" capabilities and how that fits in with the overall EW, although since they are still awaiting US approval it is only a hypothetical).
Kev has just publicly declared we are in a regional arms race. Surely islands are unsinkable air craft carriers (harder to sink than a HLD) and the government is responsible for the defence of all its territories not just mainland Oz. In terms of seaborn invasion given the difficulties that even overhwelming forces generally have with this type of operation, a couple of Collins'es stationed nearby would make it a risky enterprise. Surely forcing a foreign force to have to neutralize CI first would delay invasion (giving time for external assistance to arrive) and weaken them.
Surely quite a bit could be done to pre-militalarize the island. We have built a vastly over spec and under utilized detention centre. We have the planned space launch deal (that has and probably will never going to get off the ground), which is a great opportunity to put in some top of the range radar to track those rockets.
Under ground fuel tanks, fire fighting services and some well built straight highways.
Joint Quad (Aus, US, Jap Ind) exercises around CI, to get an idea of what it would take etc...
CI isn't just about a forward base against our most likely adversy, it is in range of the most important regional area, the Straits of Malacca.
As for Singapore, maybe we should be seeking to build closer bridges. Unlike our current closest regional "ally" NZ, they are at least willing to put money into their defence, maintain an airforce (this is an airforce thread), navy etc. (Maybe I should find or start a thread on the "NZ" part of Anzus, I can see what they get but I as a novice to defence thinking I'm not really sure what we get! (Except some well trained peace keepers to help whoever invades us to keep the peace!))
Last edited:
JoeMcFriday
New Member
Anthony,
Don't forget there's a 3000 odd metre runway already on West Island in the Cocos-Keeling group.
Perhaps a complex installation on Christmas Island would be considered indefensible unless very heavily militarised and to do so could be seen as very provocative and not worth the political grief.
Cheers,
Mac
Don't forget there's a 3000 odd metre runway already on West Island in the Cocos-Keeling group.
Perhaps a complex installation on Christmas Island would be considered indefensible unless very heavily militarised and to do so could be seen as very provocative and not worth the political grief.
Cheers,
Mac
Having read Ozzy Blizzard's stuff on Air Defence, I'd agree it is probably is unnecessary to militarize CI but it is an option we have on the table. Not something to do now but it would worth while having a look and making some plans. (Just as a contingency) Many Australian forget about our remote territories.
Indonesia hopefully continues to strengthen as a democracy and hopefully we can have a more secure region. So the whole thing becomes a moot point.
Indonesia hopefully continues to strengthen as a democracy and hopefully we can have a more secure region. So the whole thing becomes a moot point.
Last edited:
t68
Well-Known Member
F35a or F35c
In people’s opinion would it be more prudent in getting the F35c over the F35a.
http://www.jsf.mil/downloads/documents/AFA Conf - JSF Program Brief - 26 Sept 06.pdf
In respect to it having more internal fuel capacity and capable of carrying more ordnance,
F35a=184480lbs range 6oonm
F35c=20085lbs range 650nm
F35b=14003lbs range 500nm
With more fuel onboard we could reduce the amount tankers need for any given mission profile or go further or loiter for longer periods of time
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/jsf/index.html
In regards to more ordnance carried some site’s state that it can carry more but it appears in this site at the top of page it is the same, I am not sure which is correct
I am also looking long term planning if we ever decide to get a carrier in the future for the RAN, these aircraft are all ready carrier capable and the amount of aircraft on the carrier can fluctuate depending on tasking at the time
In people’s opinion would it be more prudent in getting the F35c over the F35a.
http://www.jsf.mil/downloads/documents/AFA Conf - JSF Program Brief - 26 Sept 06.pdf
In respect to it having more internal fuel capacity and capable of carrying more ordnance,
F35a=184480lbs range 6oonm
F35c=20085lbs range 650nm
F35b=14003lbs range 500nm
With more fuel onboard we could reduce the amount tankers need for any given mission profile or go further or loiter for longer periods of time
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/jsf/index.html
In regards to more ordnance carried some site’s state that it can carry more but it appears in this site at the top of page it is the same, I am not sure which is correct
I am also looking long term planning if we ever decide to get a carrier in the future for the RAN, these aircraft are all ready carrier capable and the amount of aircraft on the carrier can fluctuate depending on tasking at the time