I thought the poster said it happened in Australia? Also what happened to the F 111? and what about the Pilots?
Royal Australian Air Force [RAAF] News, Discussions and Updates
I thought the poster said it happened in Australia? Also what happened to the F 111? and what about the Pilots?
Pisces 1 crashed into an island during a maritime strike sortie against a FPDA force in 1999. It is absolute bullshit that it was being "chased" by a MiG-29. Whomever is telling that is a complete scumbag and lair. What forum did you see this lie being told?
Both aircrew were killed. Pisces 1 was simulating an anti-ship missile and clipped a tree at the edge of a very small island. The Navigator was found by the BOI to be task saturated and as part of the profile the TFR was turned off.
I don't think the RMAF has ever sent their MiG-29s to Australia.
Doesnt matter, who or which forum I got this info from. What makes you so mad at being chased by a MiG? Personnel hate of the MiG? The guy mentioned some right info's and some false info's as I can see now. Nothing to get mad at or calling names for.
But I do remember the guy quoting the Asian Defence journal running the story.
On the pilot's may they RIP.
But I do remember the guy quoting the Asian Defence journal running the story.
On the pilot's may they RIP.
The Nav was task saturated you say, but what of the pilot? The aircraft captain is ultimately responsible for the safe operation of his aircraft. IIRC the aircraft was inverted at night at low level when it speared in, loss of situational awareness by the crew? The crash also highlighted poor pre-flight planning with the islands not being taken into account considering the low level profile of the flight. This was also a factor in the recent Hawk 127 incident were an aircraft clipped powerlines while low level flying down a valley, and it was the "high" wing that was damaged!!! Seems some hard learned lessons are easily forgotten.
The Malaysian F/A-18s in Darwin during Pitch Black earlier this year were the first fighters from the RMAF to visit Australia.
Its nothing to do with the bloody MiG-29 its some scumbag taking the death of two RAAF officers in the line of duty and trying to make some kind of stupid issue out of it by fabricating a story about the MiG-29. You're skating on very thin ice nevidimka, trying to breath life into this complete fraud.
ADJ is hardly an authoritative source book on anything and since you won't fess up to where you got your 'source' from you are highly suspect in my eyes. Trying to spread a fabrication about the death of two RAAF officers involving a mythical RMAF fighter - be it MiG-29 or Hornet - is worthy of instant banning from this forum in my opinion. If anyone was so stupid as to spread this lie in person they would suffer far worse.
For the record no RAAF F-111 has been involved in an accident with RMAF aircraft. The loss of Pisces 1 in Malaysia in 1999 had nothing to do with MiG-29s, they weren't even in the area. It was during a simulated anti-ship strike against Five Power naval assets. This accident was covered by an extensive board of inquiry and even later legal action against the RAAF by family of one of lost crew. These were real people who died and try and make some false airpower point out of it is completely unacceptable.
The TFR was off because it was a tactical mission (SISAL). TFRs are huge beacons for anyone out there that a F-111 is inbound. The aircraft wasn't inverted it just flew into an island they didn't know was there because of bad pre-mission planning and because the nav was saturated with other tasks. The last action of the pilot was a rapid climb after the altitude warning sounded.
The pig wasnt inverted. WRT pilot task saturated, given they were operating as a crew, if the Nav is not giving you the info you want, he is actually going to sap SA from the pilot.
The island hit was part of a group and the main islands were considered however the smaller island the aircraft hit hadnt been. The aircraft however was off track. Believe the TFR was in the off due to the mission type. Attack radar showed the islands but nav didnt intrepret correctly due task saturation, part of which was due to the simulated mission profile of Harpoon launch in a G model pig.
Dangerous stuff flying around at night below MSA.....
The island hit was part of a group and the main islands were considered however the smaller island the aircraft hit hadnt been. The aircraft however was off track. Believe the TFR was in the off due to the mission type. Attack radar showed the islands but nav didnt intrepret correctly due task saturation, part of which was due to the simulated mission profile of Harpoon launch in a G model pig.
Dangerous stuff flying around at night below MSA.....
I think all military fixed and rotary wing aircraft should be able to act as water bombing aircraft.
I could go to bunnings and put in a water tank and a diesel powered pump with a hose for a couple grand. I'm sure with a few million dollars they'd have some awesome modular system that could be fitted in 15 minutes ready for action.
It would no doubt be an extremely inefficient way of fighting fires, A drop in the ocean really.
The cost of having every Australian military aircraft water bombing none stop could no doubt cost the taxpayer 100 million per day in wages and fatigue damage.
It would be cheaper to just evacuate eeryone and rebuild everything with that 100 millions dollars. Thats what the USA does
effective way of using ADF aircraft...i agree with rimjaz to a point.
Choppers would be best served in evac operations at a pre planned muster point. the army can provide temporary accomodation, shower systems, medical aid, feild kitchens and man power to help the bush fire brigades in back burning and a "services protected evacuation". Also assist with police....recovering bodies and deal with looters.( Those scumbags should be shot on sight IMO.)
Choppers would be best served in evac operations at a pre planned muster point. the army can provide temporary accomodation, shower systems, medical aid, feild kitchens and man power to help the bush fire brigades in back burning and a "services protected evacuation". Also assist with police....recovering bodies and deal with looters.( Those scumbags should be shot on sight IMO.)
the road runner
Active Member
Using Aircraft to stop the bush fires is a waste of money i think.The money would be better spent on constructing "FIRE BUNKERS" for local communities.Each bunker would cost about $250,000 Australian dollars to construct and would have a very high fire rating.A community fire warden would have the legal right to move people from there houses and into the bunkers.I think the laws must change to stop letting people stay and fight the fires in 40 degree heat in the middle of the bush with fuel(trees/grass) all around them
From a construction point of view i think its crazy the Government dose not have an Australian Standard(AS) for construction of houses in bushfire prone areas.It should be common practice to construct all houses out of double brick,double glazed aluminium windows,have no eves(most fires start under the eves/roof from ash blown into the roof space)have an inbuilt fire sprinklers installed above windows and roof,box gutters that can have the down pipe blocked,so water sits and runs off the box gutter.
A 10 meter boundary around the house should have paved/concrete areas and no plants/shrubs.Just think how many times on the news you see a timber house burnt and a brick house saved/even if a brick house is burnt,the structure is still there.Its crazy to build timber houses in the bush.
I think it always comes down $$$$$$$$ and its about 20% more expensive to construct double brick compared to timber/brick.What price is a life?
From a construction point of view i think its crazy the Government dose not have an Australian Standard(AS) for construction of houses in bushfire prone areas.It should be common practice to construct all houses out of double brick,double glazed aluminium windows,have no eves(most fires start under the eves/roof from ash blown into the roof space)have an inbuilt fire sprinklers installed above windows and roof,box gutters that can have the down pipe blocked,so water sits and runs off the box gutter.
A 10 meter boundary around the house should have paved/concrete areas and no plants/shrubs.Just think how many times on the news you see a timber house burnt and a brick house saved/even if a brick house is burnt,the structure is still there.Its crazy to build timber houses in the bush.
I think it always comes down $$$$$$$$ and its about 20% more expensive to construct double brick compared to timber/brick.What price is a life?
About the bunkers,excellent idea and a very simple and effective one at that.Interesting to see if anyone raises such a proposal in the media.
On the news today a fire chief was saying n regards making people evacuate, that its not as easy as said on account that most dangerous place in a bushfire was on the roads...I see the proposal for bushmaster fire vehicles could resurface again.
the road runner
Active Member
I would imagine with the smoke and fire blocking the vision of the drivers on the roads,causing accidents and preventing people from fleeing the road.The pictures from the news ,showing burnt out cars with trees blocking the road is just heart breaking.
Thinking about having your own bunker?
Each house could have there own fire bunker, 2 meters by 2 meters,costing about $40,000 to construct
Or
as i posted above, a community bunker for $250,000 odd dollars.
winnyfield
New Member
Most of the Army's choppers are based up north. They're busy with the floods.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #1,616
With regards to the fire situation in NSW & VIC... I have to disagree with some members re the viability of using ADF aircraft as 'water bombers'.
I do not have any particular or special knowledge of us water bomber systems, but I have read a bit on them. What I have learned leads me to think that trying to use ADF aircraft could end up making the situation even worse.
US water bomber systems tend to be either old prop aircraft (surplus WWII or Korean War era bombers & MPA) with bomb bays, or some helicopters using an underslung dumping bucket. Due to the need to closely coordinate between ground-based fire personnel and ensure that any water or fire-retardant is used on the leading edges of a fire, the aircraft need to be flown essentially 'on the deck'. Due to this, the aircraft needs to be capable of reasonable handling at low altitudes and often low speeds, which eliminates a number of the ADF aircraft.
What is also very important is the specific training water bomber pilots get to safely, accurately and effectively dump their payloads. As mentioned above, the aircraft tend to fly slowly. Given that they operate over large-scale forest fires, they need to be able to operate and compensate for the effect being close to the ground, as well as the heat, smoke and updraft caused by the fire. These conditions make it hazardous for pilots to fly, as they sometimes cause a pilot to lose situational awareness, or sometimes just outright control of their aircraft. Not to mention, if in the US the situation is serious enough to merit water bombing, there is likely going to be several water bombers in the area, all operating at low altitudes and typically (since usually in remote areas) without much in the way of ATC. Pilots would also need to be able to recognize where their payloads need to be dropped, as well as to judge from what altitude and approach speed is needed to deliver the payload on target. This is not a skill that most pilots have, particularly if they are operating an aircraft that does not have an integrated bombsight or aiming system.
Lastly, ADF aircraft would likely need to be modified in order to act as water bombers, via the addition of some sort of water carriage and deployment system. Taking something like a C-130, water could be deployed out the back, with the rear loading ramp lowered, but some sort of rapid dumping system would be needed to release the water over the drop. Otherwise either not enough would be released, or water would also be dropped onto areas that either do not need it or where having water dropped could make matters worse (like onto a working ground crew...)
While it would be nice for Australia to have (or have more) water bombers, I do not think adding this sort of mission, with the specific training and equipment requirements it would entail, is appropriate for the ADF. At least, not without a significant improvement in both the personnel and budgetary allocation and management.
-Cheers
I do not have any particular or special knowledge of us water bomber systems, but I have read a bit on them. What I have learned leads me to think that trying to use ADF aircraft could end up making the situation even worse.
US water bomber systems tend to be either old prop aircraft (surplus WWII or Korean War era bombers & MPA) with bomb bays, or some helicopters using an underslung dumping bucket. Due to the need to closely coordinate between ground-based fire personnel and ensure that any water or fire-retardant is used on the leading edges of a fire, the aircraft need to be flown essentially 'on the deck'. Due to this, the aircraft needs to be capable of reasonable handling at low altitudes and often low speeds, which eliminates a number of the ADF aircraft.
What is also very important is the specific training water bomber pilots get to safely, accurately and effectively dump their payloads. As mentioned above, the aircraft tend to fly slowly. Given that they operate over large-scale forest fires, they need to be able to operate and compensate for the effect being close to the ground, as well as the heat, smoke and updraft caused by the fire. These conditions make it hazardous for pilots to fly, as they sometimes cause a pilot to lose situational awareness, or sometimes just outright control of their aircraft. Not to mention, if in the US the situation is serious enough to merit water bombing, there is likely going to be several water bombers in the area, all operating at low altitudes and typically (since usually in remote areas) without much in the way of ATC. Pilots would also need to be able to recognize where their payloads need to be dropped, as well as to judge from what altitude and approach speed is needed to deliver the payload on target. This is not a skill that most pilots have, particularly if they are operating an aircraft that does not have an integrated bombsight or aiming system.
Lastly, ADF aircraft would likely need to be modified in order to act as water bombers, via the addition of some sort of water carriage and deployment system. Taking something like a C-130, water could be deployed out the back, with the rear loading ramp lowered, but some sort of rapid dumping system would be needed to release the water over the drop. Otherwise either not enough would be released, or water would also be dropped onto areas that either do not need it or where having water dropped could make matters worse (like onto a working ground crew...)
While it would be nice for Australia to have (or have more) water bombers, I do not think adding this sort of mission, with the specific training and equipment requirements it would entail, is appropriate for the ADF. At least, not without a significant improvement in both the personnel and budgetary allocation and management.
-Cheers
Firebombing is not a role carried out by ADF aircraft, and should not become one based on an emotional response to the fire tragedy. (I do seem to remember Navy choppers doing fire bombing on the NSW south coast some years ago though, before dedicated firebombers were contracted by State Governments.) We simply haven't got the resources to carry out a role that may or may not be required and keep up with all the other operational and training demands. Best left to the professional contactors that support the Bushfire Brigades every fire season. Maybe we need more of them.
Off topic but in response to previous posts.
Don't see the value of "bushfire bunkers", you still have to reach them and this seems to be one of the ways that people perished, i.e. in the open exposed to radiant heat trying to flee the fires. The number required to be built would surely make this idea to expensive.
A bushfire code for new buildings constructed in known bushfire prone ares would be a better idea (unsure if one already exists). Similar to the Cyclone code for dwellings across northern Oz. CSIRO could investigate/develope new materials, construction methods and countermeasures to bushfires. This may be a topic for the upcoming Royal Commission as well.
Finally, anyone found to be responsible for lighting these deadly Victorian fires should face capital punishment. The PM is right, it is mass murder and should be treated as such.
Off topic but in response to previous posts.
Don't see the value of "bushfire bunkers", you still have to reach them and this seems to be one of the ways that people perished, i.e. in the open exposed to radiant heat trying to flee the fires. The number required to be built would surely make this idea to expensive.
A bushfire code for new buildings constructed in known bushfire prone ares would be a better idea (unsure if one already exists). Similar to the Cyclone code for dwellings across northern Oz. CSIRO could investigate/develope new materials, construction methods and countermeasures to bushfires. This may be a topic for the upcoming Royal Commission as well.
Finally, anyone found to be responsible for lighting these deadly Victorian fires should face capital punishment. The PM is right, it is mass murder and should be treated as such.
the road runner
Active Member
barra,i know its a bit off topic(should i start a new thread?bunker for fires?)
I agree that people did perish in the open from radiant heat,but i think most of these people,were defending there houses and realized to late ''its time to go'' thus being caught in the fires.
As for CSIRO developing new materials,bricks,reo steel and concrete are the way to go to get a very high fire rating and structural integrity.
Back on topic
Water bombers planes would be a waste of money in my opinion and i agree with barra that it would be better for more chopper units(elvis and georgia peach) from contractors who support the Australian fire fighting services.
Just heard that a Mi-8 fire fighting chopper, from "Helli Harvest" (biggest in southern hemisphere) will be hear soon from New Zealand.Also a 5 tonne fire fighting bucket
http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/nz-sends-big-bucket-fight-victoria-fires-2470824
I agree that people did perish in the open from radiant heat,but i think most of these people,were defending there houses and realized to late ''its time to go'' thus being caught in the fires.
As for CSIRO developing new materials,bricks,reo steel and concrete are the way to go to get a very high fire rating and structural integrity.
Back on topic
Water bombers planes would be a waste of money in my opinion and i agree with barra that it would be better for more chopper units(elvis and georgia peach) from contractors who support the Australian fire fighting services.
Just heard that a Mi-8 fire fighting chopper, from "Helli Harvest" (biggest in southern hemisphere) will be hear soon from New Zealand.Also a 5 tonne fire fighting bucket
http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/nz-sends-big-bucket-fight-victoria-fires-2470824
yes, im from "up north",i know...navy has some assets...at HMAS Albatros in southern NSW. Also, there are private helo,s...bass straight oil rigs are serviced by puma,s. im suggesting helo,s only for evac, when there is sufficent warning time, in the current situation, thee was no warning.
Does anyone know when the first F18F,s will be delivered to RAAF?
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
The first two F/A-18F's are to be rolled off the production line in July this year. I imagine that normal tests for a production aircraft will take a month or two and there will be a pretty big "formal handover" a month or two later.
The first jets are to remain in the United States for some time, whilst RAAF builds a basic capability to operate the aircraft. They will be ferried to Australia, later...