I thought I saw somewhere that JDAMs were being developed as an option for the P-8A Posseiden; if they could be retrofitted to the APC-3 then they would be a much better option
Body is based on Hellfire, but modified - strengthened for sustained high-speed carriage. ATK, which makes the motors for both Hellfire & Brimstone, said in its 2001 annual report that -
That implies that the Brimstone motor is also different from that of Hellfire - though still American.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Not sure that JDAMs would be appropriate for the AP-3C, at least not to attack detected targets in an area like Afghanistan. The JDAM for one thing has a listed CEP of 13m using INS/GPS guidance, which I would imagine would be slightly larger than desired when the munitions would likely be used against fairly small targets. Of greater (IMO) issue though is that being a INS/GPS guidance tail kit, I do not believe it would be suitable for use vs. moving targets.
As for the Hellfire and Brimstone... Brimstone I believe would be suitable, having a operational range of ~12km and being an all-weather missile with its own on-board MMW radar seeker and programming to allow independent target selection. Still not so sure that Hellfire would do though. Having read up on the two missiles, the Hellfire did indeed serve as much of the base for the Brimstone, but it is not as capable (at least in the anti-armour sense). The Brimstone is ~2kg heavier, and about 18 cm that a AGM-114M Hellfire II, the blast-frag variant. A more significant difference between the two though, is that the Brimstone has been designed to, and cleared for, operation from fixed-wing aircraft whereas the Hellfire variants are only configured for airborne use from helicopters.
In effect, a working launch system as well as the needed targeting systems would need to be adapted or developed for use from the AP-3C. Between the age of the platform, when they are expected to be replaced, and the difficulties and time required to integrate something like the Hellfire onto a P-3 Orion, I am not certain it would be worthwhile.
-Cheers
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Hellfire is not restricted to Helo platforms. They have been integrated onto Predator/Sky Warrior UAV's for a start and they have now been integrated on Iraqi fixed wing Cessna Caravans...
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzvuAQZlrAo]YouTube - Combat Camera Video: Iraqi Air Force Hellfire Rocket Launch, Part 2[/ame]
Either Brimstone or Hellfire is fine by me, but as we already have Hellfire in-service with ADF many of the procurement issues with Hellfire have already been dealt with... I agree that integration would have to be conducted, but then it would no matter what weapon was selected.
I envisage the RAAF AP-3C's performing much the same role as the caravans, primarily overland ISR as they are right now but with an immediate rapid response capability, if required to a wide range of threats.
I agree, that JDAM isn't exactly what is required in this role...
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
<insert faceplant here> I had completely forgotten about the Predator carrying Hellfires... How embarrassing. The Caravans I had been unaware of though.
In terms of the AP-3C having the option of engaging a detected target is, IMO a good idea. My only issue is what I had raised before, assuring the safety of the aircraft as they are only available in (very) limited numbers and effectively cannot be replaced. Come to think of it though, there is a possible secondary concern with arming an Orion with an ASM. This is whether or not a short-ranged ASM can be effectively use without having a negative impact upon the performance of its ISR functions.
Of course, this is not something we would know for certain, as the actual effective altitude and range of the Hellfire is in question, as well as what the optimum altitude and range is for the AP-3C Orions when in the ISR role.
-Cheers
I think it's a matter of launch platform speed. Hellfire can be launched from relatively slow platforms, not fast jets. Predator is slower than many helicopters, & Cessna Caravan comparable with fast helicopters.
P-3 is a lot faster, maybe (but I don't really know) too fast for Hellfire.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Well it's going to be difficult to judge from publicly available data. The P-3C's top speed is much faster than a Caravan or any helo, but how much time do they spend at top speed?
At normal cruise speeds, I don't believe the Hellfire should experience any major problems.
Out of interest, the USMC has recently integrated Hellfire onto it's KC-130J tankers to provide a defacto "tanker/gunship" combo, so launch speed/altitude clearly isn't a major issue for Hellfire for the sorts of speeds a Hercules can achieve, only sustained high speed and the P-3C clearly ain't a supersonic tactical fighter....
Last edited by a moderator:
I would think that the speed at which they do circle work to drop sonabuoys is more than within the launch parameters of a hellfire.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
That's alright, I'd forgotten the Hellfire had recently been integrated onto USMC KC-130J Hercules only recently, otherwise I'd have brought that up MUCH earlier...
It seems MUCH the same idea as I have for RAAF's AP-3C's, which as I've pointed out any number of times ARE in theatre and it's difficult to conceive how arming a tanker is any less of a waste of time than arming an ISR aircraft...
Well the reason I think it would be useful are:
A. The AP-3C is being employed in the over-land ISR role, to detect land based targets. It has been specifically equipped with Star Safire HD EO/IR surveillance system for the Iraq theatre and is (I understand) equipped with laser targetting payload as well, so it is ALREADY capable of designating targets...
B. The Hellfire range from a hovering helo is up to 8k's. In the roles currently being performed the only threat to aircraft is small arms and machine gun fire for short duration bursts. There is limited to no missile threat and those that may exist during short durations (before being targetted and neutralised themselves) cannot reach 8k ranges... An AP-3C (or a C-130J) will be flying faster (and usually higher) than any helo can reach and therefore range performance WILL be increased for the Hellfire.
C. It is already in ADF inventory and from all appearances is relatively simple to integrate onto an aircraft, especially one already mounting the necessary targetting capabilities...
I could be wrong, but it seems possible and others think a similar installation is worth their while. I think it would be an excellent capability enhancement for RAAF, at relatively cheap overall cost too...
That's the last I'll say on this. It doesn't appear in DCP and ADF is "tight" at present, but urgent operational requirements spring up and this seems like a useful effort in the anti-terrorist ops that seem likely to pre-occupy ADF for some time to come, yet...
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Agreed. Plus, if a C-130 can carry them...
Good point. It can always slow down to Hellfire launch speed. Same with the C-130 AD mentioned, where in gunship operations it would normally be flying rather slowly.
I think that for fast jets, there's also a problem with Hellfires ability to withstand extended high-speed carriage, but that shouldn't be an issue with the relatively low cruise speed of a C-130, & probably not for a P-3.
t68
Well-Known Member
With the Dutch planning to pull out of a-Stan, do people think it is Australia best interest to take completely from the Dutch?
Army chief Lieutenant General Gillespie from reports from the Australian newspaper seems to think we would not have a problem taking over.
How long do you think an Australian task force could keep it up and would we have the necessary equipment ready to go?
Would tiger be ready to deploy or would have to rely on the Americans for air support, a troop of Abrams should imo be a necessity for such a deployment.
If it came to the crunch what type of force should we deploy ie mechanised or motorised, maybe light infantry with the kiwi’s backing up with their nzlav .
Army chief Lieutenant General Gillespie from reports from the Australian newspaper seems to think we would not have a problem taking over.
How long do you think an Australian task force could keep it up and would we have the necessary equipment ready to go?
Would tiger be ready to deploy or would have to rely on the Americans for air support, a troop of Abrams should imo be a necessity for such a deployment.
If it came to the crunch what type of force should we deploy ie mechanised or motorised, maybe light infantry with the kiwi’s backing up with their nzlav .
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
Theoretically the Australian Army could do it, however it would effectively mean deploying 1/3rd of the army over seas (~1 Brigade) and would require pulling out from all other commitments.
A half squadron of Tigers shoud be deployable sometime next year.
However I don't know how long it could be sustained without calling up reserve units.
A half squadron of Tigers shoud be deployable sometime next year.
However I don't know how long it could be sustained without calling up reserve units.
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
You wouldn’t need a full brigade; just a battlegroup centred on an infantry battalion would be about right, probably 2~3000 personnel including the larger PRT at most. Offcourse we would need to deploy fire support assets (arty and ARH) and fast movers. I don’t think such a deployment is beyond our capability or unsustainable even with other commitments. The only issue I can see is with the ARH's, to deploy 6x airframes for any length of time we would need the whole 22 up and running. Then again I’m sure the Marines or US army can lend us a few AH-1’s or AH-64’s. Deploying two flights of Hornets shouldn’t be a problem.
Offcourse the government would have to be prepared for more casualties.
battlensign
New Member
It may just be the excuse we need to get out of Timor though.
Apparently according to the Australian today there is growing unease about the presence of Australian forces there. However, the same story also talks of the growing Chinese influence there and the last thing the government would want is a power/presence vacuum.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/pol...-causes-headache/story-e6frgczf-1225801855117
Maybe we could strike a deal with the dutch to maintain a 1200-1500 person battlegroup
there if we took over the leadership role.....(those F16s and AH-64s would sure be handy)
Brett.
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
Nah, have them leave some engineer's there. Ozzy is right, an Infantry battlegroup (1 Battalion plus attachments), plus the Tigers and a flight or two of Hornets would replace the forces they are pulling out.
Would take us to ~1.5 Battlegroups plus engineer's, helicopters and fast jet detachments. From memory there is currently roughly half an infantry battalion or so over there, plus the SAS detachment, ATC detachment (at Kandahar airport), engineer's and chinook detachment.
battlensign
New Member
Hang on....
We need more forces there, not less and certainly not only the same amount as now. We don't want to be merely replacing the Dutch but rather building more forces there in order to achieve the objectives that are not currently being met. I am really talking about politically using the potential of us taking over the reins to ensure the Dutch public believes that allies are stepping up and therefore making them less hostile to a continued battlegroup presence beyond their stated deadline and possibly even using the need for this an excuse to solve a potentially sensitive East Timor forces presence issue.
BTW - Operation Slipper Contribution:
(If we are to believe wiki, though most rings true with my own estimates)
As of September 2009 approximately 1,550 Australians were deployed to Afghanistan
National Command Element
2nd Mentoring and Reconstruction Task Force (MRTF2)
Headquarters, 1st Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment (1 RAR)
2 x Infantry companies, 1 RAR
Squadron, 2nd Cavalry Regiment (equipped with ASLAVs)
Engineering Task Group (drawn from the 3rd Combat Engineer Regiment)
Detachment, 20th Surveillance and Target Acquisition Regiment, Royal Australian Artillery (operates ScanEagle UAVs)
Operational Mentoring and Liaison Team (embedded with an Afghan Army battalion)
Special Operations Task Group
Elements of the SASR, 2 CDO and the Incident Response Regiment
Rotary Wing Group (including two CH-47D Chinooks helicopters).
Detachment, 4th Field Regiment, Royal Australian Artillery (16 men attached to the 29th Commando Regiment Royal Artillery)
RAAF Control and Reporting Centre (Kandahar International Airport)
Two AP-3C Orion maritime patrol aircraft and three C-130 Hercules transports
Personnel embedded with various coalition units
Force Level Logistic Asset (Kandahar International Airport)
Brett.
Last edited:
battlensign
New Member
I am all for it but not sure that would be sustainable in the longer term. Thats part of the reason I was trying to find a way for the Dutch to stay. AD and Abe can probably give better figures (and I think they did somewhere) but I would be suprised if we could put more in the field than:
Brigade HQ
2x Infantry Battalions
2x Cavalry Squadrons
1x Troop of Abrams
Arty Support (4 guns? with rapid M777 acquisition?)
2x Engineer Companies
Supporting Logistics units
6x Tigers with very much IOC (although actually ready in time......?
1x Flight F18s (EWSP systems upgrade?)
etc. etc.
Brett.
Last edited:
exported_kiwi
New Member
I would hope that NZ could contribute to this "brigade" group postulated. It'd be good experience for our boys and at the same time, lend a hand to our ANZAC brothers.