A
Aussie Digger
Guest
18x I think is the usual number, but our Supers will be shared between 1 Sqn and 6 Sqn as the F-111's currently are.
Royal Australian Air Force [RAAF] News, Discussions and Updates
one of type usually gets held over for test and dev reasons (weapons tests, flight handling dev etc...) as these are short leases they may not do it with these though.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
One is supposedly remaining in the US for a fair while, with "only" 23 being in Australia for most of their service life, as I understand it...
I suppose the one left in the US will be used to try out new weapons, electronics, etc.
first of class is normally kept at edinburgh for that kind of work.
Why then would we be leaving one behind in the USA?
RAAF Tankers
Why do we need to send our MRTT's to Spain for final series proving flights?
Second MRTT completes flight-test program
04 Nov 2009
Following successful completion of its initial flight-test program in Brisbane, the second A330 Multi-Role Tanker-Transport (MRTT) for the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) has departed Australia for Spain where it will join another RAAF MRTT for a final series of proving flights.
The aircraft is the second of five ordered by the RAAF and the first to be converted at an industrial centre outside Airbus Military's home base in Madrid.
The conversion task was successfully performed by Qantas Aviation Services with the support of Airbus Military.
Qantas in Brisbane will also perform conversion of the three remaining aircraft.
During four missions involving 20 hours of flying time, the MRTT performed all planned tests as part of a rigorous sequence of flight trials leading to certification.
One flight included several low passes over the MRTT's future home base, RAAF Amberley, in South-East Queensland, while a simulated long-haul flight took the big aircraft out to Alice Springs and Uluru, Central Australia, and back.
Ground testing prior to the first flight included a rejected takeoff, with the MRTT accelerating to 100 knots before the application of full braking to bring the aircraft to a stop.
The October ADM edition
Why do we need to send our MRTT's to Spain for final series proving flights?
Second MRTT completes flight-test program
04 Nov 2009
Following successful completion of its initial flight-test program in Brisbane, the second A330 Multi-Role Tanker-Transport (MRTT) for the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) has departed Australia for Spain where it will join another RAAF MRTT for a final series of proving flights.
The aircraft is the second of five ordered by the RAAF and the first to be converted at an industrial centre outside Airbus Military's home base in Madrid.
The conversion task was successfully performed by Qantas Aviation Services with the support of Airbus Military.
Qantas in Brisbane will also perform conversion of the three remaining aircraft.
During four missions involving 20 hours of flying time, the MRTT performed all planned tests as part of a rigorous sequence of flight trials leading to certification.
One flight included several low passes over the MRTT's future home base, RAAF Amberley, in South-East Queensland, while a simulated long-haul flight took the big aircraft out to Alice Springs and Uluru, Central Australia, and back.
Ground testing prior to the first flight included a rejected takeoff, with the MRTT accelerating to 100 knots before the application of full braking to bring the aircraft to a stop.
The October ADM edition
Probably the same reason as why we have other assets in the US....
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Yah, but in the case of the Supers, tied in with USN upgrade path as they are, that might be different. One Super airframe definitely is remaining Stateside post 2012...
AOSG probably have their hands full with existing types - Hornet, MRH-90, Tiger etc and as the Supers are "OTS" I can see USN/Boeing doing the integration work for us...
In the current climate thats more than likely.
a few contractors are shying away from defence now. I met the head of one company this morning who's in one of the top 5 - he stated that they're feeling screwed by the very people that they help so are now starting to look for other work to reduce their vulnerability.
there's close to 200 contractors about to get the shove around christmas
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
And on top of everything else, as a layman it actually makes sense. USN/Boeing's support and integration/testing capabilities far dwarf our own.
For an "interim" type which is hitched to the USN, it makes no sense whatsoever trying to "go our own way" on this one...
Why have the RAAF selected the F-35C version of the JSF, which is designed for the USN fo conventional carrier operations over the F-35A version designed for the USAF.
What makes the USN version a better option for the RAAF than the USAF version.
I have no doubt there are some very valid reasons, but i am curious.
What makes the USN version a better option for the RAAF than the USAF version.
I have no doubt there are some very valid reasons, but i am curious.
Trackmaster
Member
Everything I have seen is that we are working towards the "A".
Don't know where the information on the "C" came from...first I have heard.
I would say a typo
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
Where did you read that? Everything i've seen says we are getting the "A" model.
The C model is more manoeuvrerable, better at low speed and has greater range, but lacks an internal gun. Its also plenty more expensive, 50%+ depending on how many the USN buy.
I could easily be wrong. For some reason I had thought it was the F-35C version we were looking at. Perhaps it is due to the fact the RAAF has tended to opt for USN aircraft in recent years.
I tried to confirm either way, but every reasonable source I found lists just F-35 without type (other than no F-35B); whereas other nations are broken down by type. Curiously this includes the white paper and defence capability plan, which goes into sub-types for other aircraft.
Interestingly I did find out some differences between the F-35C and F-35A
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-35c.htm
Interestingly the F-35C has a range of 1,400m vs the 1,200nm of the F-35A, plus is optimised for survivability, has heavier kanding gear and more wing surfaces (Wingspan 13.1m (9.1 folded) vs10.7 m; Wing Area 57.6 m2 vs 42.7 m2 ). It is slightly heavier and doesn't have an internal gun.
Curiously wing span has been an issue for the RAAF, for example the Australian F-111C was an F-111A with the larger wingspan of the F-111B (a USN design) and the reinforced undercarriage along the lines of the FB-111.
Last edited:
Cost wise (expected fly-away costs in 2015)
from F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Lightning II
F-35A - ~$68 million
F-35B - ~$87 million
F-35C- ~$92 million
Although this cost is somewhat subjective as the F-35A is much further along the development process with a first flight in Dec 2006 and expected to enter service in 2013 whereas the F-35C has a first flight of Jan 2010 and expected to enter service in 2015. The F-35B has a first flight of 12 June 2008 and is expected in service in 2012.
(Generally through the life of the project the F-35C and F-35B have been projected to be around 25-33% more expensive than the F-35A.)
To put things in perspective, for comparison:
the Typhoon costs around €63 million (2009)
Eurofighter Typhoon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
the F-22 costs around US$142.6 million (2009)
F-22 Raptor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Rafale C costs around €64 million (2008 pricing)
Wapedia - Wiki: Dassault Rafale
from F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Lightning II
F-35A - ~$68 million
F-35B - ~$87 million
F-35C- ~$92 million
Although this cost is somewhat subjective as the F-35A is much further along the development process with a first flight in Dec 2006 and expected to enter service in 2013 whereas the F-35C has a first flight of Jan 2010 and expected to enter service in 2015. The F-35B has a first flight of 12 June 2008 and is expected in service in 2012.
(Generally through the life of the project the F-35C and F-35B have been projected to be around 25-33% more expensive than the F-35A.)
To put things in perspective, for comparison:
the Typhoon costs around €63 million (2009)
Eurofighter Typhoon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
the F-22 costs around US$142.6 million (2009)
F-22 Raptor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Rafale C costs around €64 million (2008 pricing)
Wapedia - Wiki: Dassault Rafale
Last edited:
Those comparisons are flawed, IMO. The F-35 figures are in 2015 US dollars, while the others are in prices of other years. Also, I'd like to know their source. I'm pretty sure the Rafale figures include VAT (I don't have the source to hand, but I remember this from reading the Senat reports), but the others do not include equivalent taxes. And the Eurofighter price is the export price for the original Austrian contract, which probably (but this was not explicitly stated when the price was leaked) included a 7% export levy.
The only one which I think is the actual, current (or at least recent) ex-factory price with no extras is the F-22.
This illustrates some of the difficulties in making such comparisons.
The only one which I think is the actual, current (or at least recent) ex-factory price with no extras is the F-22.
This illustrates some of the difficulties in making such comparisons.
I was mainly compairing the costs of the various JSF versions, and they are from a single source.
Naturally it is very difficult to make accurate comparisons. The sources are there and they are all supposedly 2009 (or 2008 prices).
take the 7% levy off and the Typhoon is still €58.6m
I don't know the specific details of the various costings, but it seems a reasonable starting point for a ballpark comparison.
Last edited: