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

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Then of course GDP comparison assumes similar levels of Government access to revenue. The Indonesian economy is no where near advanced enough for their Government to raise the same levels of revenue off their economy as Australia can.
Actually this was my main point. Australia having 1/10th the population, but a GDP of ~80% that of Indonesia means that Australia has the potential for much or capital to be spent on infrastructure, R&D, acquisitions, etc.

A greater % of the Indonesian GDP is going to be consumed domestically on the basic essentials of food, clothing and shelter, as well as standard consumables like fuel, medicines, etc.

-Cheers
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
That's fine, but you might want to ask yourself how vital airframe performance is these days in relation to how military air power works. If you have the greatest avionics in the world, and can plug into a system that networks the entire battle force and enables sharing of sensor data and a battlefield picture, how important is the need for raw airframe performance as opposed to avionics systems?

Also for that matter, think about the raw performance of sensors/weapons as opposed to airframes - there might be aircraft out there that can out-perform a Super Hornet, but when helmet-mounted targeting systems and high off-boresight missiles capable of turning in excess of 60 Gs are a relative mainstay, again, does the airframe performance of the launch platform (which will NEVER match that of a high performance air to air missile) have such importance? In that environment doesn't increased situational awareness become even more important?

And in the face of all this imaginary air-to-air jousting you should also consider that (and someone will correct me here if I'm wrong) a networked, first-tier air force is likely to be more capable of taking out air threats where they're most vulnerable, that is on the ground. None of the above matters if the enemy has the capability to destroy your command and control, runways, fuel and munition dumps, and aircraft before you can react appropriately. This is another aspect of winning an air war that often gets ignored in online discussions but if you look at recent examples you'll see how important it can be.

These are just questions to consider, as I said what you choose to believe is up to you.
Much of this has to do with changes in how air combat is (or can be...) conducted.

In prior generations of fighter aircraft, the speed and maneuverability of an aircraft where of prime importance, as one of the 'keys to victory' was the ability to out position ones fighter relative the hostile one was dogfighting.

With the current level of sensor development and deployment, along with the comms to support and link such systems, the individual aerodynamic characteristics of a fighter have become less important. The reason why these characteristics have decreased in importance is that aircraft position has also decreased in importance.

As Bonza mentioned previously, a modern fighter aircraft, with a pilot in top shape and using one of the latest pressure suits is not going to be able to sustain maneuvering above 11-g's before the pilot either blacks out or reds out. This means that a fighter aircraft cannot sustain the sort of maneuvers that a BVR or WVR missile can of 40 - 60-g's. With the introduction of BVR missiles which can achieve kills at long ranged, traveling at speeds of Mach 3+ (depending on missile...) the targeted fighter is not able to 'out run' a BVR missile if it is fired within the NEZ (no escape zone). With some model missiles getting more advanced propulsion systems, both the missile range and speed have increased, and caused a corresponding increase in the missile's NEZ.

What this has lead to (or perhaps actually caused the development of, not sure) is the idea which I think of as being "first look, first shoot, first kill". Namely that the combatant who sees their opponent first can usually get the first shot off, and therefore usually will win the engagement. This means that more advanced sensors and comms to increase ones ability to detect the enemy is very important. At the same time, treatments and capabilities to reduce or degrade one's enemies ability to detect your own fighters (i.e. LO) are also very important.

-Cheers
 

Abraham Gubler

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Actually this was my main point. Australia having 1/10th the population, but a GDP of ~80% that of Indonesia means that Australia has the potential for much or capital to be spent on infrastructure, R&D, acquisitions, etc.

A greater % of the Indonesian GDP is going to be consumed domestically on the basic essentials of food, clothing and shelter, as well as standard consumables like fuel, medicines, etc.
Sure but its even worse than that for Indonesia because Australia's GDP is three times as big on exchangeable wealth.
 

ddub321

New Member
Actually this was my main point. Australia having 1/10th the population, but a GDP of ~80% that of Indonesia means that Australia has the potential for much or capital to be spent on infrastructure, R&D, acquisitions, etc.

A greater % of the Indonesian GDP is going to be consumed domestically on the basic essentials of food, clothing and shelter, as well as standard consumables like fuel, medicines, etc.

-Cheers
You used the Purchasing Power Parity GDP figure rather than the Nominal GDP figures. The Nominal GDP is the absolute level of economic output of a country (rather than PPP which is more concerned with what a dollar earned within a country will buy in that country).

Based on the Nominal or absolute GDP figures, Australia GDP ~ US$1.3 Trillion, Indonesia ~ US$700 Billion. So Aus has 1/10th the population, but almost twice the GDP of Indonesia. I don't want to sound nit-picky, but there is a big difference.
 

Kirkzzy

New Member
Seeing as you are getting your info from APA (laughed when I found this as it all started making sense) I suggest going back and reading through the thread (I know its long.. but you can also search "Defence Talk -insert what you want to know-" on google, it works for me) and finding what you need to know instead of brining old info back up again. Also recommend you take a step back, read more reputable sites and gather more info, instead of stating "facts" that are actually quite far from the truth with nothing to back them up. (Worked for me when I first entered DT, made the same mistake, and still make that mistake.)
 

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
And Bonza, thanks for the advice. I'm a very big fighter plane aficionado and not exactly a fan of the F-18 airframe. Regardless, it's avionics is one of the best, it's basically the best-value multi-role fighter in the whole world. Not the best available though.
Everyone else has said enough, but when you see things like this, you begin to understand why a few percentage points difference in basic aeroshell performance are virtually meaningless for modern air combat.

If that F/A-18C gets first look on your Supercruising Uber Flanker, all the low-wing loading, post stall maneuvering and greater thrust to weight ratios in the world aren't going to matter.

That AIM-9X will just kill you every time. Those "cardinal aspects" of air combat that the geese at APA prattle on about, have NOTHING at all to do with who sees who first.

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4g4_jzqBJnA"]AIM-9x SIDEWINDER Trial - YouTube[/nomedia]



And this is why Western design philosophy is concentrating on sensor to shooter capability, rather than overly focusing on getting their aircraft to accelerate from M0.8 to M1.2 just a couple of seconds faster. Uber Flankers are never going to out-turn a missile.
 

Ozzy Blizzard

New Member
Then of course GDP comparison assumes similar levels of Government access to revenue. The Indonesian economy is no where near advanced enough for their Government to raise the same levels of revenue off their economy as Australia can.
This is the key point. IIRC while Australian and Indonesian GDP levels are comparable, government revenue in Australia is roughly three times that of Indonesia, hence the disparity in defence spending.

Additionally Australia's much higher per capita GDP means there is much greater ability for the Australian government to mobilize a larger part of the economy towards military production.

Then when you consider Australia is moving to a postindustrial economic model, when Indonesia is still essentially an agrarian economy, the difference in the ability to produce high quality technology is massive.
 

Ozzy Blizzard

New Member
I'm just not talking about wartime capability, but about power projection, and who gets to dictate or influence defense policy in the region. Indonesia is the world's largest and one of the most secular Muslim countries in the world. Just 15 years ago, Indonesia was the laughingstock of SEA. And India is closer to a meltdown than anyone expects. Anything could happen.

Of course, the F-35 could be a half-baked plane and not the great thing it should be. Both the Typhoon and Rafale had the distinction of being a little outdated when they came out. It came as a surprise to me that UK is planning on retiring their Tranche 1 fleet in the near future. Who's to say F-35 wouldn't encounter the same problems? With the J-20 and PAK FA rolling out, I wouldn't be too sure about everything.
I think the problem here is there's a big difference between winning an "argument" on the internet and being responsible for providing security for a society. If you are in charge of your nations future air combat capability you don't make your procurement decisions based off (IMO half baked) worst case scenarios which require a chain of disasters to occur. If you are going to invest billions of dollars in military capability you do it based on cost, availability and risk assessments. A fighter may be the bestest most uber thing ever, but if it costs so much you forgo a public health system in order to get a usable number then the threat better be bloody well worth it (and of course if you have to wait fifteen years for IOC that's not great either).

You invest in military capabilities such as these in order to hedge against risk. Risk is determined by the likelihood of an event occurring combined with the consequences of said event occurring. So how likely is it that Indonesia will transform into economic superpower (despite the systemic obstacles which have prevent it from doing so thus far), align with China in spite of its current political and economic relationships, procure the T-50 or J-20 or Su-35BM in spite of none of them actually existing as yet, then face an RAAF equipped with a fighter which in spite of the company and nation producing it's previous record of turning out world class fighters and the well established capabilities of a relatively mature development program ends up being a dud? And even if ALL that actually happened, what would be the consequence? Australia would still be the greater military power with greater strategic depth and a far more professional, technologically advanced and integrated military with the US alliance and access to US technology.

And Bonza, thanks for the advice. I'm a very big fighter plane aficionado and not exactly a fan of the F-18 airframe. Regardless, it's avionics is one of the best, it's basically the best-value multi-role fighter in the whole world. Not the best available though.
Since when has the airframe been the defining factor in air combat at any range in any age?
 

Ozzy Blizzard

New Member
For those interested, Ozzy Blizzard did a very long and in-depth article on exactly how APA got it wrong.

Ozzy Blizzard's Australian Defence Times: Air Power Australia, Flanker Analysis Examined

-- edit --

Talk about timing OB :)

btw, why no blog posts after 2009?
Thanks Spud,

I guess the main reason I started the blog was APA, and then study got (and is still getting) in the way. Decided to change career and knock a degree off in 18 months. Not a heap of time for blogging unfortunately.
 

colay

New Member
Of course, the F-35 could be a half-baked plane and not the great thing it should be. Both the Typhoon and Rafale had the distinction of being a little outdated when they came out. It came as a surprise to me that UK is planning on retiring their Tranche 1 fleet in the near future. Who's to say F-35 wouldn't encounter the same problems? With the J-20 and PAK FA rolling out, I wouldn't be too sure about everything.
Its reassuring to those countries who have invested in the F-35 program that the jet is living up to the hype. It apparently passed its RCS tests with flying colors.. in the words of the program director Adm. Venlett, he was " very, very pleased" at the results.. And the F-35's AESA radar and EODAS sensor suite installed on a surrogate platform has drawn high praises for an impressive performance operating in a 'real world' threat environment at the most recent Northern Edge exercise up in Alaska.
As for the PAK-FA and J-20.. its like reading tarot cards or tea leaves by comparison trying to guesstimate their capabilities and performance.
 

raptor2019

Banned Member
Aust takes delivery of 5th C-17 aircraft

Aust takes delivery of 5th C-17 aircraft

Australia has taken delivery of its fifth Boeing C-17 Globemaster transport aircraft.

In a ceremony at the Boeing plant at Long Beach, California, Defence Minister Stephen Smith formally received the aircraft, only ordered in April.

It was purchased in a foreign military sale deal with the US Air Force assigning one of its already ordered aircraft to Australia.

Aust takes delivery of 5th C-17 aircraft / XAIRFORCES NEWS
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Raptor. Can you please go and read the Forum Rules about posting etiquette

One of the things we expect from members is to add some insight into any article that they copy/paste/source from elsewhere.

Anyone can copy and paste, and it adds no value as such. We expect commentary to follow it, views, insight, opinion.

Any future straight copies without commentary will be deleted without warning. If you do it again after this advice you also run the risk of being temporarily banned to think about it in even more detail.

You need to acknowledge this as understood as well.
 

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Australia seeks 6th C-17A

Defence Ministers » Minister for Defence – Sixth C-17A Globemaster III – Letter of Request

23 September 2011
Minister for Defence Stephen Smith announced today that Australia is investigating the purchase of a sixth C-17A Globemaster III heavy-lift aircraft.

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.

A sixth C-17 would give the Government increased options to support a wider range of contingencies that might require heavy-lift aircraft. Advice from Defence is that a sixth aircraft would double the number of C-17A aircraft available for operations at any one time compared to four aircraft.

Minister Smith made this announcement at the Amberley Air Force Base today at the ceremony marking the arrival into Australia of the Royal Australian Air Force’s fifth C-17A.

The acquisition of the fifth C-17A was announced by the Government on 1 March this year and was confirmed in the 2011-12 Budget.

On 14 September, Minister Smith took delivery of the fifth C-17A Globemaster III at Boeing’s Long Beach production facility near Los Angeles.

The Royal Australian Air Force’s five C-17A aircraft were delivered over the period 2006 to 2011. The first of these became operational in 2007, providing the Australian Defence Force with a global airlift capability.

The addition of the fifth aircraft to the Air Force’s fleet will expand Australia’s capacity to deploy personnel and equipment rapidly all around the world.

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.

Events in Queensland, Christchurch and Japan earlier this year underlined the C‑17s as an essential part of Australia’s capacity to respond to natural disasters both within Australia and within our region.

The ability of C-17s to move equipment and people played a vital role in the aftermath of Cyclone Yasi in north Queensland in February, helping to transport ADF personnel and civilians and airlifting more than 320 tonnes of cargo, including more than 200 tonnes of food supplies. C-17s also helped evacuate to safety in Brisbane more than 250 patients from Cairns Hospital and Cairns Private Hospital.

C-17s also delivered much-needed equipment, stores and emergency services personnel to New Zealand in the wake of the terrible February earthquake in Christchurch and returned more than 100 Australian civilians to Australia.

In March, following the earthquake and tsunami in Japan, C-17s moved more than a million pounds (450 tonnes) of cargo, including 41 vehicles, as well as 135 passengers as part of Australia’s relief efforts in Japan. At one stage during the relief operation, Australia had three C-17 aircraft in Japan providing humanitarian assistance and disaster-relief support.

While disaster relief has been a recent public focus for C-17 operations, they also 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.

Following receipt of cost and availability information from the United States, the Government will make a decision about the purchase based on capability, cost and schedule assessments of the sixth C‑17A.



Mr Smith’s Office: Andrew Porter (02) 6277 7800 or 0419 474 392

Mr Clare’s Office: Korena Flanagan (02) 6277 7620 or 0418 251 316

Defence Media Operations: (02) 6127 1999



Tags: Smith 280/2011

_______________________________________________________

Interesting. I had no hint a 6th was even on the cards...
 

the road runner

Active Member
Interesting. I had no hint a 6th was even on the cards...
:flash WOW great news.I would imagine the 5 ,C17 we have are being used quite a bit,(with all the natural disasters,wars and peace keeping missions Australia is involved in).

Im assuming a 6th is on the card because the other 5 are being worked so hard?


Advice from Defence is that a sixth aircraft would double the number of C-17A aircraft available for operations
So 2 in operation,2 Training up and 2 being serviced?

Dose the RAAF have a set amount of units they would like to acquire ?

Regards
 
Last edited:

John Newman

The Bunker Group
:flash WOW great news.I would imagine the 5 ,C17 we have are being used quite a bit,(with all the natural disasters,wars and peace keeping missions Australia is involved in).

Im assuming a 6th is on the card because the other 5 are being worked so hard?




So 2 in operation,2 Training up and 2 being serviced?

Dose the RAFF have a set amount of units they would like to acquire ?

Regards
I remember late last year or earlier this year, before the 5th C17 was ordered, there was an interesting article in Australian Aviation magazine.

It was pondering the question about a possible 5th and maybe 6th aircraft, the article was also published before the natural disasters in QLD, NZ and Japan.

One of the main points being made, was that the original 4 airframes were going to start to come up for their "heavy" maintenance periods, which means the aircraft goes to the US and is out of service for around 6mths.

And if one airframe follows the other, well that's 2 years worth of the fleet being reduced to 3 airframes.

And if only 3 were available, one might be on deployment, one in maintenance of sort locally, only leaves one on standby.

That made a lot of sense and obviously after the natural disasters as well, it must have then been a no brainer for the goverment to order the 5th.

It is interesting "timing", announcing the possible purchase of a 6th, just as the 5th arrives!

Must have been on the cards for a while.
 

jack412

Active Member
Both BACC and NACC ? that seems a bit strange that both are smiling or I'm missing something basic, more help please, I'm only a pleb :confused:

re NACC, the waiting seemed too long for Production Parts that has gone into receivership
Australia battling to keep fighter contract - National News - National - General - The Canberra Times

I saw an interview with Dr Alan Stephens and this sentence struck me and I wonder if its a general view ?
Exclusive Interview: "The F-35 is seen as head-and-shoulders the best option for Australia" | Asia-Pacific Reporting Blog
Australia is closely involved with various US agencies in smaller, niche R&D work, e.g., hypersonics, VLF radar, composites, etc. But, I think the overall experience with the F-35 will discourage future large-scale arrangements.

and if anyone feels like a laugh, he interviewed clown club too
Exclusive Interview: "The F-35 is not a viable design and could never meet Australia's national security needs." | Asia-Pacific Reporting Blog
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Both BACC and NACC ? that seems a bit strange that both are smiling or I'm missing something basic, more help please, I'm only a pleb :confused:
actual capability matters are always different from what the general press promote

the reason for Prod Parts failing can hardly be attributed to the JSF program though - everyone knew that there was hostility towards a second engine - at the end of the day they made a commercial decision to play in the space that everyone else was incredibly nervous about - and which had been fighting an uphill battle for the last 3 years.

those companies that have diversified away from defence contracts or haven't. taken a punt are doing well.

I'd be blaming congressional manouvre as being the culprit - not the program itself.

You'd have to look at all the parties involved with Eng 2 and ask why have they not taken the same hit......
 
Top