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

Todjaeger

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
splat said:
I know this site has some people who dont take to kindly to apa's views on airpower but all im asking is for an opposing view point from some other websites that go into detail in regards to their views on the subject.

I cant accept apa's view as the more releveant one because that would require me to have had a good detailed look at the opposing side to the debate,which i havent.

So if anyone has links to websites that can get stuck into the superhornet/F35 from an opposing angle to apa id appreciate it.
If not thanks anyway.
Click to expand...
What you might want to do is searches here on DT. In particular from about 18 months ago relating to the F-35 and/or Su-30. Some APA supporters made some arguments about on-going projects which were counter to what APA had been arguing (the F-35 amongst them) and referenced the APA site to support their arguments. Various DT members then proceeded to point out various flaws in the APA arguments.

From memory, and without looking at the APA site, some of these were:

1. Assumptions that currently unfunded R&D programmes for advanced radar & avionics on the Su-30 & derivatives will result in systems capable of detecting LO aircraft and out performing systems to be in the F-35 in the ~2015-2020 time frame.

2. Assumes R&D development and outcomes for the F-35 and other similar Western programmes will essentially remain static while Russia, China and other threat nations and/or their suppliers will make sufficient technological strides to achieve technological parity if not overmatch in capabilities.

3. Managed to ignore the changes in battlespace interaction which have been occurring. In essence, combat occurs at a systems level, but the comparisons done by APA were only at a platform level. This effectively resulted in APA ignoring how their chosen platform would fit into the OrBats of the RAAF, the ADF and any allied forces.

4. Lastly, APA has made a number of statements as to their estimates of how effective certain systems and properties would perform (like various sig management techniques). While various members might have sufficient technical background to understand the principles employed to achieve various results, they lack the needed security clearances to learn the actual performance and test data, which means estimated performance numbers are effectively meaningless though they might look accurate...

-Cheers
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
splat said:
I know this site has some people who dont take to kindly to apa's views on airpower but all im asking is for an opposing view point from some other websites that go into detail in regards to their views on the subject.

I cant accept apa's view as the more releveant one because that would require me to have had a good detailed look at the opposing side to the debate,which i havent.

So if anyone has links to websites that can get stuck into the superhornet/F35 from an opposing angle to apa id appreciate it.
If not thanks anyway.
Click to expand...
Try this one:

http://www.geocities.com/element1loop/index.html

Or this:

http://ozzyblizzard.blogspot.com/
 
B

BLADE135

New Member
Hi Guys,

Just posting some news about the 737 AEW&C Wedgetail Project. Thought you might find this interesting, it was in the news this morning.

Australia's troubled Boeing Wedgetail airborne early warning and control (AEW and C) aircraft have demonstrated the ability to simultaneously control three unmanned drone aircraft.

In a trial conducted in the United States last month, operators aboard the RAAF aircraft flying over Washington state remotely flew three ScanEagle unmanned aircraft systems (UAS).

The airborne operators issued NATO-standard sensor and flight control commands by way of a UHF satellite communication link and ground-station relay.

Boeing will conduct another demonstration of this capability at RAAF Base Williamtown, NSW, next month with a Wedgetail controlling ScanEagles operated by Boeing Defence Australia personnel at Woomera, South Australia, 1,730km away.

Pierce Lutter, Boeing associate technical fellow for unmanned vehicle control systems, said this would have been a considerable achievement if conducted in a laboratory setting.

"But we used currently fielded platforms and systems in a real-world setting to demonstrate a new level of command-and-control capability for war fighters," he said in a statement.

Under the $3.45 billion Wedgetail program, Australia is buying six Boeing 737 airborne early warning and control aircraft, each equipped with an advanced radar able to watch over a 400km radius, directing fighters to any threat.

The project has faced significant delays because of technical problems with the radar.

Under the original delivery schedule, the RAAF was to receive its first Wedgetails in November 2006. Under a new deed of agreement with Boeing, the first aircraft will arrive this November to begin aircrew training. It will have limited operational capability.

The remaining aircraft are scheduled to arrive by mid-2010 with full capability.

During his visit to the US this week for the annual Australia-US Ministerial talks (AUSMIN), Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon will hold talks with US company Northrop Grumman on Wedgetail radar progress.

Australia troops employed ScanEagle drones in Iraq and currently do so in Afghanistan.

Maureen Dougherty, Boeing vice-president in charge of the AEW and C program, said the ability to remotely control ScanEagle substantially increased the operational versatility of Wedgetail.

She said it also demonstrated that operational 737 AEW and C systems were robust enough to allow integration of future capabilities.

In the test last month, three ScanEagles were launched from Boeing's Boardman Test Facility in eastern Oregon, about 190km away from the airborne Wedgetail.

Operators tasked them with area search, reconnaissance, point surveillance and targeting.
Click to expand...
Have a nice day:)
 
R

rossfrb_1

Member
Bou replacement

http://www.australiandefence.com.au/index.cfm?objectid=14D38E4C-2486-11DE-96A70050568C22C9
"How many Buffalos make a Caribou? 09 Apr 2009 Canada's Viking Aircraft is to offer its new or upgraded turboprop-twin Buffalo NG STOL tactical transport to Australia as a replacement for its fleet of Caribou light tactical airlifters. Viking has acquired the type certificate for the de Havilland Canada range of aircraft from Bombardier Aircraft. The Viking Buffalo NG is on offer to Canada to meet the requirements for a search and rescue aircraft. The Buffalo, in its original form, are now used for the work. It will also compete against the Alenia C-27J Spartan for the order. - APAR"


on a related note these are also of interest. http://www.casr.ca/doc-news-viking-buffalo-specs.htm
http://www.casr.ca/doc-news-viking-buffalo.htm http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gene...&headline=Viking Eyes Restarting Buffalo Line

This idea of replacing the caribou with, well an almost Caribou - the Buffalo DHC-5 was a following on from the Caribou DHC-4 according to wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Canada_DHC-4_Caribou http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Canada_DHC-5_Buffalo)

Has been a pet idea that has appealed to me for a while now. In theory I like the proposal, especially if the 'DHC-5NG' can really leverage an existing design and new COTS technology in a truly cost effective way. However this thing is vapourware and to my mind at least, a 5 year development/design to production span seems remarkably optimistic (quite Koppish really). Maybe if the yank military got behind the idea and threw in a heap of $$ - it might make it (but then the price would probably blow out), but I doubt a "small British Columbia company" by itself could manage - I just can't see it happening.
And i can't imagine the yanks being interested seeing how they have invested in the C-27J.
Besides, if such a beast were to wear RAAF livery - then it would have to be available in about 5ish years.
Like i said, it's a pet idea of mine, sigh.

rb
 
gf0012-aust

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
goon will be beside himself if this ever got up - he spent years trying to flog off re-engined 'Bous for the light transport program

when he turned into a knob he killed any chances of doing business in govt....
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
gf0012-aust said:
goon will be beside himself if this ever got up - he spent years trying to flog off re-engined 'Bous for the light transport program

when he turned into a knob he killed any chances of doing business in govt....
Click to expand...
It would almost be worth it, just to hear the sounds of gnashing teeth... :p:
 
S

splat

Banned Member
AUSTRALIA'S top science agency has walloped some of the world's biggest industrial giants in the US patent courts to bring the country a pay check worth up to $1 billion over the next five to 10 years.

The CSIRO has won its long-running battle to enforce a patent on technology used in Wi-fi connections that have become virtually ubiquitous in laptops and other devices around the world.

Hewlett-Packard was the first of 13 companies to back down early this month when it opted to settle the patent dispute rather than take it before a jury trial in the US federal court.

Alex Zelinsky, director of the science agency's ICT Centre, today confirmed that all of its opponents had chosen to settle the case rather than go ahead with another trial.

The agency's lawyers are currently flying back to Australia with details of the settlement. Dr Zelinsky said, however, that the pay off would be worth up to a billion dollars and keep royalty payment flowing into the country over the next decade.

"You could imagine what this would mean for CSIRO. If we get into a barney over another piece of intellectual property (our opponents) are going to be thinking 'should we settle with these guys or stare them down',” Dr Zelinsky.

Also, having won the settlement the CSIRO may now be able to level their sights on other companies that were not enjoined in the court case.

The CSIRO's case dates back to 2005 when it sued wireless component provider Buffalo for intellectual property breaches. A further 12 companies including Dell, Intel, Microsoft, Nintendo, Fujitsu, Toshiba, Netgear, Buffalo, D-Link, Belkin, SMC, Accton, and 3Com joined the case after CSIRO lawyers won an injunction preventing it from selling its products.

The group of heavyweights joined in an attempt to squash the agency's patent claims.

The dispute then took a complicated route through various circuits of US appeals courts before arriving at a US federal court and before a jury.

However, this week all 13 companies settled the case. The details of the settlement are confidential but it's understood that each firm has settled their matters separately.
 
PHOTOGRAPHER

PHOTOGRAPHER

New Member
What are everyones thoughts on our purchase of 7 Ch47f's. Just heard this on the news and was very happy personally. Does this now rule out a purchase of other airframes such as C-27?
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
PHOTOGRAPHER said:
What are everyones thoughts on our purchase of 7 Ch47f's. Just heard this on the news and was very happy personally. Does this now rule out a purchase of other airframes such as C-27?
Click to expand...
Maybe, who knows?

The DSCA announcement for 7 airframes says little about their intended role.

4x of the Army's CH-47D fleet, were re-built CH-47C Chinooks and they have been worked very hard, particularly in the last few years. Perhaps these are replacements for some of the existing airframes?

DSCA announces requests for military capability. It doesn't necessarily mean that such has actually been purchased or is intended for purchase. The 7x airframes included in the request, may include "options" on additional airframes and we may only order a lesser number of actual airframes.

Time will tell...
 
N

Navor86

Member
So it seems like a done deal.
7 CH47F to replace 6 D Models.And noting whether the D models will be upgraded.
The JSF will replace the SH so even those wired as growlers.
2 add. Hercules instead of the mentioned 6 and 10 Light Transports.
For me it does not seem like a huge increase more like a replacement on a 1:1 Base
 
W

winnyfield

New Member
Navor86 said:
2 add. Hercules instead of the mentioned 6 and 10 Light Transports.
Click to expand...
It's actually:
+2 C130Js
retire C130Hs
~10 light fixed wing transport for the caribous
KC-30s need to be taken into account - but no talk of more MRTTs, pity

9.72 The Government has decided to increase our air transport capability through the acquisition of two additional C-130J Hercules aircraft and up to ten light tactical fixed-wing aircraft to replace the DHC-4 Caribou aircraft. These new aircraft will complement the current air transport fleet of four C-17 and 12 C-130J aircraft. The older C-130H aircraft will be retired. The Government will ensure that these new light tactical fixed-wing aircraft will have significantly greater range, speed and payload than the retiring Caribou transports. Extra lift capability will be provided by the five KC-30A multirole tanker-transport aircraft.
Click to expand...
 
Tasman

Tasman

Ship Watcher
Verified Defense Pro
Navor86 said:
So it seems like a done deal.
7 CH47F to replace 6 D Models.And noting whether the D models will be upgraded.
The JSF will replace the SH so even those wired as growlers.
2 add. Hercules instead of the mentioned 6 and 10 Light Transports.
For me it does not seem like a huge increase more like a replacement on a 1:1 Base
Click to expand...
If additional funding is provided to take up the option to convert up to 12 FA-18Fs to EA-18Gs I would expect these would complement the 4 squadrons of FA-35As. However, at this stage, only the wiring, etc, has been included in the projected program. It is quite clear in the White Paper that actually converting the SHs to Growlers would require an additional budgetary provision.

It is certainly good sense to wire 12 of the SHs to make this possible if funding becomes available and it is seen as a priority down the track.

Tas
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top