Interesting, any ideas on the platform? There is a lot of development happening in the states especially on tier 2 - 3 platforms. Does anyone know if there are new platforms coming to Avalon this year?
Royal Australian Air Force [RAAF] News, Discussions and Updates
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
The full list of aircraft attending for the show is available here:Interesting, any ideas on the platform? There is a lot of development happening in the states especially on tier 2 - 3 platforms. Does anyone know if there are new platforms coming to Avalon this year?
AVALON 2011 - AUSTRALIAN INTERNATIONAL AIRSHOW AND AEROSPACE & DEFENCE EXPOSITION - 1-6 March 2011 GEELONG VICTORIA
The Heron UAV was on it early, but seems not to be now. Perhaps another one has crashed in Afghanistan?
RAAF was reportedly very interested in the MQ-1C Grey Eagle (formerly Sky Warrior) a few years back. I'd suggest this sort of platform is representative of what RAAF would like in the longer term...
F136 funding cut...
House Votes Against F136 JSF Alternate Engine | AVIATION WEEK
Dutch may be less inclined to keep on the program.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/226083
Regards
House Votes Against F136 JSF Alternate Engine | AVIATION WEEK
Dutch may be less inclined to keep on the program.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/226083
Regards
Don't understand why people are so set against the F-35. Great plane, great systems, and out weigh the minor compromises made to get them there.
F111 were too valuable, we had to spy on what tasmania was building... Haha.. While it would have been "nice" to role with the big boys plinking from our F-111 and enhancing intergration etc, thats not why we got them, we got them as strategic weapons. Particularly for intel they were very valuable to know what is happening regionally.
F111 were too valuable, we had to spy on what tasmania was building... Haha.. While it would have been "nice" to role with the big boys plinking from our F-111 and enhancing intergration etc, thats not why we got them, we got them as strategic weapons. Particularly for intel they were very valuable to know what is happening regionally.
Sure and if the Russian radar people can be believed their new Zhuk-AE AESA will be able to detect the F-35 in frontal aspect at a range of 19km (10 NM). Also the Irbis-E PESA will do similar at 47km (26 NM). Even if these figures are true they are too late to not get destroyed by the F-35. Stealth is important.
[Claim made that these radars could detect a 5/3sqm target at 160/350km . Which equates to 19/47km against a -30dbsqm target.]
Last edited:
This says something about the attitude the new Congress has for budgetary matters. The new Speaker of the House is from Ohio and there is nothing that could have meant more for Ohio from the federal government, especially Dayton... This Congress is going to cut, cut, and cut...
Just to confirm what I think you are implying.
Pratt and Whitney have an engine services centre in Dayton Ohio.
And this is related to their JSF engine program (?).
cheers
rb
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #2,328
Pratt & Whitney have the main F135 engine facility in East Hartford, Connecticut, the GE/Rolls-Royce F136 engine would be at least partially constructed in Ohio and Indiana.
At present, the F135 engine is a go, it is the F136 engine which apparently requires several billion more in funding to complete, which the DoD and some portions of Congress are attempting to cancel.
-Cheers
Hmm the f135 needs another $400m for "improvements", and the F136 producers claim $1b more to complete testing.
Several partners will be a little miffed if this readjustment of the planned JSF 2 engine types is confirmed.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #2,331
The vote itself was apparently to eliminate US$450 mil. in developmental funding for the F136 engine for the 2011 fiscal year defence budget.
According to a number of the defence, political and financial papers in the US, keeping the F136 engine programme going was expected to cost US$3 bil. to $4 bil. What I am uncertain of, is how much of that has already been spent. It is worth noting that Adm. Mullen, Chairman of the JCS has stated that the F136 engine is 2-3 years behind schedule. All this, for an engine which the Pentagon has been trying to stop development of since ~2007.
-Cheers
What surprising is the GE plant is in his district... Usually Congressmen attempt to win pork for their districts... But Boehner is more fiscal conservative of a freeze and cut person than he is a bringing home the pork person... I just wanted to mention just a bit of the politics involved... This Congress will be a cut congress... Don't be surprised if there are more cuts...
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #2,333
From the political side of things, the measure has only passed the House, until it makes it through the Senate and then gets signed by the President, it is only an attempt to kill the F136. From some of the political maneuverings I have been reading about, Boehner and other members of Congress (from both parties and houses) from the region have not yet given up keeping the F136 engine in development.
-Cheers
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #2,334
Not necessarily. The argument which has been getting advanced, is that by having two engines under development, there can be 'competition' between the two engines/manufacturers. That competition would then force the manufacturers to drop the price of each engine.
What the argument manages to overlook, is the tremendous amount of capital which needs to be expended to develop engines which meet the performance criteria specified for the engines. By having two separate companies/consortiums undergoing simultaneous R&D to meet the same performance metrics, unless one of the companies manages to make some lucky break or critical development, the programme is likely to end up with two engines with very similar performance, yet require two completely separate logistical trains to support. And of course, the R&D could cost ~twice what developing one engine would.
The other alternative of course, would be for both engines to be developed and operational, and then have both producers submit bids on engine production, with the 'winner' being the company which has the 'better' bid. The downside to that idea is that either way, one of the companies would not produce their engine, and someone would end up paying US$3+ bil. to develop an engine which would not see serial production or use.
If a company was forced to absorb that sort of R&D hit, it could seriously hamper their ability to continue with R&D, which would explain why the funding has been coming from the Pentagon, but the DoD has been trying to shut off the flow of money for several years now.
-Cheers
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
They need it like a hole in the head. The GE/RR engine is the biggest pork barrelling exercise I've ever seen in my life.
Neither engine will be producing more power whilst they are using the same sized exhaust nozzle and any development work will only occur from either manufacturer when Government funding is ponied up for it.
The most ironic thing is during the "great engine war" that is the ONLY justification for this ridiculous exercise in overly lavish spending is that GE was funded to develop it's F110 engine and PW was funded to improve it's F100 at the same time and both engines were so similar that the differences extremely minor throughout the flight regime (GE F110 works a faction better at lower speeds, F100-PW-229 works a fraction better at higher speed).
GE charged a little less for their engines. PW charged a little less for supporting the engines... Now GE is charging a little less for supporting the engine, PW...
Yes Saudi changed their mind and opted for the GE engine. This doesn't change the fact that one engine type is satisfactory for the overwhelming majority of the world's fighter fleet and it is for the F-35 too. If F135 wasn't meeting it's requirements it might be fair enough. But it is meeting it's requirements.
The $3b that GE needs to finish their engine can be better spent on other projects.
Edit: And if competition is the primary interest, why not simply fund GE/RR to produce the F135 as was done with the GE manufactured F404 in the early 1980's when P&W started manufacturing that engine. I'd suggest this would be significantly cheaper than continuing development of the F136 AND setting up a new production line AND supporting 2 separate engine types, neither of which outperforms the other.
That way there would be the competition that is apparently so important as far as engines go, (but is apparently not so important as far as any of the other major systems go, I don't see Raytheon getting funded to add APG-79 as an alternate radar for instance...).
Last edited by a moderator:
MPUAVs
The development of the Cormorant Multi-Purpose Unmanned Aerial Vehicle seems to have dropped off the radar, anyone know if it is still progessing? DARPA hasn't released anything on it for a while.
I wonder if Australia has looked at developing a similar capability? Or even having the systems onboard the P3s to assist in the location and retrieval post deployment of the US birds...
I personally don't see any great advantage in a platform such as Cormorant; apart from deploying in to areas which might have otherwise required a land based effort where that is not a politically feasible option.
I think that the concept is great for future needs but whether these MPUAVs would actually add value to current operations is another thing..
The development of the Cormorant Multi-Purpose Unmanned Aerial Vehicle seems to have dropped off the radar, anyone know if it is still progessing? DARPA hasn't released anything on it for a while.
I wonder if Australia has looked at developing a similar capability? Or even having the systems onboard the P3s to assist in the location and retrieval post deployment of the US birds...
I personally don't see any great advantage in a platform such as Cormorant; apart from deploying in to areas which might have otherwise required a land based effort where that is not a politically feasible option.
I think that the concept is great for future needs but whether these MPUAVs would actually add value to current operations is another thing..
RubiconNZ
The Wanderer
Here is some good news:
5th C-17 Globemaster being considered
Great news, this is though in lieu of the 2 C-130-J's to be purchased, I also appreciate the idea of a buy in from the RNZAF.
This will be I imagine be one of the last shots to get a purchase in before the line shuts.
5th C-17 Globemaster being considered
Great news, this is though in lieu of the 2 C-130-J's to be purchased, I also appreciate the idea of a buy in from the RNZAF.
This will be I imagine be one of the last shots to get a purchase in before the line shuts.
This is good to see, it is certainly needed. It will be interesting to see NZ reaction to this from a buy in point of view with what has happend with the earthquake and estimates that it could cost NZ up to $15 Billion ! might not make it good timing for NZ, although I would not see a problem with them buying in later down the track ?
But with the line closing soon I don't see why we should buy 1 when you can buy 2 and twice the price
surely we could get some mates rates on 2meatshield
Active Member
This is great news. And I agree 2 would be better than 1This is good to see, it is certainly needed. It will be interesting to see NZ reaction to this from a buy in point of view with what has happend with the earthquake and estimates that it could cost NZ up to $15 Billion ! might not make it good timing for NZ, although I would not see a problem with them buying in later down the track ?
But with the line closing soon I don't see why we should buy 1 when you can buy 2 and twice the price
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Official announcement.
C-17A Globemaster III Letter of Request
Australia is investigating the purchase of an additional C-17A Globemaster III heavy lift aircraft Minister for Defence Stephen Smith said today.
Australia has sent a Letter of Request to the United States regarding the potential purchase of an additional C-17A aircraft through the United States Foreign Military Sales program, formally seeking cost and availability information.
Mr Smith said the Royal Australian Air Force currently had four C-17A Aircraft. They were delivered over the period 2006 to 2008. The first of these became operational in 2007, providing the Australian Defence Force with a global airlift capability.
Recent events in Queensland and Christchurch have underlined the C‑17s as an essential part of Australia’s capacity to respond to natural disasters both within Australia and within our region.
While disaster relief has been a recent public focus for C-17 operations, they continue to support Australian and International Security Assistance Forces in Afghanistan and the Middle East, meeting their primary purpose in providing military long-range heavy airlift.
The C‑17A aircraft can lift very large and heavy cargoes over long distances providing a significant contribution to Australia’s ability to reach and respond to events. One C‑17A can carry up to four C-130 Hercules loads in a single lift and cover twice the distance in three-quarters of the time of a C‑130 Hercules.
Mr Smith said that acquisition of an additional C-17 would almost certainly obviate any need for the acquisition of two additional C-130J-30 aircraft under project AIR 8000 Phase 1.
As outlined in the Public Defence Capability Plan, the additional C-130J acquisition is planned for final decision by Government in the period 2013-14 to FY 2014-15.
Following receipt of cost and availability information from the United States , the Government will make a decision about purchase based on capability, cost and schedule assessments of an additional C-17.