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

[Media Buff]

Another APRB post

Thanks for the links! There is another interview as well with Andrew Davies of ASPI which is as interesting as Stephens and pro-F-35 ...

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

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

 

[riksavage]

Having a look at the Amberley apron (thanks Google) the new work has supplied eight spots for heavies. This new hardstand could be duplicated on either side allowing for 24 heavy spots. It would be awfully crowded as you would have (south to north) the air movements loading area, 82 Wing and then six lines of four heavy spots and then the cleaning bay. It looks like when they put the new cleaning bay in (which has required the road around the runway to have a bump put into it) that the spacing of the new MRTT/C-17 hardstand was designed to be duplicated on either side. So you could base the MRTTs and C-17s at Amberley with up to 12 units each.

Wouldn't it make sense to create a super base for your strategic assets - C17/MRTT pooling all supporting maintenance/ground crews and distribute your tactical lift C130's to support regional garrisons and SF in the North, West and East?

 

[ADMk2]

Wouldn't it make sense to create a super base for your strategic assets - C17/MRTT pooling all supporting maintenance/ground crews and distribute your tactical lift C130's to support regional garrisons and SF in the North, West and East?

Amberley is the "super base" for C-17 and MRTT in RAAF service.

C-130's are ALL located at Richmond NSW.

The Caribous and their replacement -(temporarily King Air's, longer term BFA -Battlefield Airlifter) are based in Townsville, directly supporting 3 Brigade.

There is a long term force structure and basing review underway at present. Local groups have long been trying to close down RAAF Base Richmond, or at least slant the "dual use" capability heavily in favour of civilian aviation activities and with all the major "green" Army units leaving Sydney, I'd suggest they might finally win their battle...

With 3RAR losing the Para role and moving to Townsville as an air mobile battalion, it seems likely the C-130H/J fleets will find a new long term home, whether this will be Brisbane, Townsville or Darwin / Tindal remains to be seen. Townsville seems likely (and the most logical choice) to me, but I've no idea if they have the capacity to accomodate our C-130 fleet.

I'd suggest it's very unlikely they'll be based in WA...

 

[lopez]

There is a long term force structure and basing review underway at present. Local groups have long been trying to close down RAAF Base Richmond, or at least slant the "dual use" capability heavily in favour of civilian aviation activities and with all the major "green" Army units leaving Sydney, I'd suggest they might finally win their battle...

.

i grew up in Windsor. my house was located just down the road (literally) from RAAF Richmond. It truly would be a shame for it to go. I used to love watching all the planes coming in to land. funny i must have been the only one who enjoyed it when the Yanks C5s shook the house when they came into land and take off ...

i would of thought that it would be strategically sound to maintain some defence air assets in the south of the country rather than having them all up north and having to park all you defence planes in civil airports when the head south.

 

[StingrayOZ]

I think most residents want the RAAF at richmond. Those that don't are idiots. As soon as the RAAF leave thats when it will fly commerical flights out.. All hours..

Richmond can handle even An-225..

If the RAAF move out, they will never get a Sydney stop ever again. Using Sydney airport even occasionally is not an option. They will be lucky to get in even in an emergency. Sydair is that packed all the time.

Its not like Richmond doesn't get used, F-18s a month or so and C-17s are regularly flying from and around Richmond. Hercs are everywhere scattered like candy.

 

[ngatimozart]

I think most residents want the RAAF at richmond. Those that don't are idiots. As soon as the RAAF leave thats when it will fly commerical flights out.. All hours..

Richmond can handle even An-225..

If the RAAF move out, they will never get a Sydney stop ever again. Using Sydney airport even occasionally is not an option. They will be lucky to get in even in an emergency. Sydair is that packed all the time.

Its not like Richmond doesn't get used, F-18s a month or so and C-17s are regularly flying from and around Richmond. Hercs are everywhere scattered like candy.

The trouble with local groups and airfields is the NIMBY syndrome. Not In My Back Yard, yet in a vast majority of cases the airfield was there long before the NIMBYs were, and they choose to forget that they chose to live there, knowing full well that said airfield was pre-existing. What is known as highly selective memory.

When I was at RNZAF Wigram and the Harvards were night flying the complaints used to role in. Wigram had been in existence since about 1917 and this was late 1970's and people had chosen to live by a RNZAF training base. Plenty of other areas of Christchurch they could have chosen to live in. Go figure.

 

[uuname]

THE battle for a $1.5 billion contract to supply the Air Force with ''workhorse'' transport planes to be used in war zones has begun.

European aviation giant Airbus has called on the federal government to make the process competitive rather than simply selecting a replacement for the Air Force's fleet of Caribou aircraft.

Airbus seeks fair contest on planes

It looks like there's a bit of a push on to promote the C295 at the moment.

One of Europe's leading defence industry executives, Mr Raso was in Australia with a team of senior executives to talk up his company's products at meetings with military officials.

His company, which has sold Australia five air-to-air refuelling tankers, is keen to sell Defence 10 or more of its C295 battlefield airlifters to replace our ageing fleet of Caribous.

Manufacturer warns orders are drying up - National News - National - General - The Canberra Times


There are a couple of sections in the second article I found interesting.

Mr Davies said while there was not much room to move on the price of the C-27, which would have to be bought under the terms of the US foreign military sales program, that was not true of the C295.

Given the potential spin-offs from securing an Australian contract, it might even make sense for Airbus Military to sell planes at cost or even at a loss.

Obviously pushing a price difference here. I'm guessing they want a slice of the maintenance pie.
Still, it would be nice to know just how cheap they can go.

With a production rate of 18 C295s a year and only 10 aircraft on back order, Airbus Military's production line for the plane has about six months of work.

To be honest, this makes it sound like the C295 will miss the boat. Given how long it has has taken so far, is it likely an order would be made in time?
Can't help but think that a politically safe decision would be to do nothing for 6 months, let the line close and then there's no choice... so no-one can complain.

 

[t68]

Interesting they are only talking 10 aircraft to be purchased, its not one for one.

Out of the 24 aircraft purchased from 1963 and the last to arrive in service in 1971 (2 Squadrons worth) with the first aircraft lost in 1964 at NAS Nowra and we lost 2 more aircraft along the way but RAAF Museum doesn’t say where we lost them or when. The fleet was reduced in 1991 from 21 aircraft down to 14 withdrawn aircraft were used as a source of spare parts for those that were left.

So are they planning on a joint tactical airlift Squadron(s) between Army and RAAF with a 7 Chinook helicopter fleet and the proposed 10 light tactical transport planes, would that be enough considering that both aircraft will be used mostly to support Army anyway.

 

[Marc 1]

Interesting they are only talking 10 aircraft to be purchased, its not one for one.

Out of the 24 aircraft purchased from 1963 and the last to arrive in service in 1971 (2 Squadrons worth) with the first aircraft lost in 1964 at NAS Nowra and we lost 2 more aircraft along the way but RAAF Museum doesn’t say where we lost them or when. The fleet was reduced in 1991 from 21 aircraft down to 14 withdrawn aircraft were used as a source of spare parts for those that were left.

So are they planning on a joint tactical airlift Squadron(s) between Army and RAAF with a 7 Chinook helicopter fleet and the proposed 10 light tactical transport planes, would that be enough considering that both aircraft will be used mostly to support Army anyway.

Effectively, 10 new modern more easily maintained airframes is probably about double the number the RAAF could generate in Caribou's in the last few years. When you add in the greater payload, and much faster speeds, the 10 x C-295's would probably be the equal of 25 Caribou's anyway in airlift terms.

As an aside I think one Caribou was lost in PNG in the 80's practicing short field landings in the highlands. The airframe was recovered for parts IIRC.

 

[weegee]

BAE Hawk 127

Hi guys just a quick question for the guys in the know,
If needed can our jet trainer the BAE hawk 127 be used in a conflict? in a hypothetical scenario a big threat is coming from the north and WE HAVE TIME to get every plane we have in the air, would this include the little trainer or is there nothing that they can/would add to this scenario? I suppose this also goes for the Pilatus PC-9? Just would be interesting to know that is all.

 

[Todjaeger]

Hi guys just a quick question for the guys in the know,
If needed can our jet trainer the BAE hawk 127 be used in a conflict? in a hypothetical scenario a big threat is coming from the north and WE HAVE TIME to get every plane we have in the air, would this include the little trainer or is there nothing that they can/would add to this scenario? I suppose this also goes for the Pilatus PC-9? Just would be interesting to know that is all.

Theoretically, yes. Realistically, no.

The Hawk 127 LIF is able to mount guns, bombs and missiles on hardpoints. Having said that though, they lack much of the avionics to make real and effective use of them. AFAIK the displays are configured to appear like those of the HUG Bugs, but there is no radar like the APG-66H which is found in the Hawk 200-series lightweight fighters. I could be mistaken, but I rather doubt that any pods have ever been integrated with the Hawk 127 either.

Basically what that would leave the Hawk 127 as, is a maneuverable high subsonic aircraft able to drop bomb bombs, fire unguided rockets, strafe targets in the cockpit sights, and perhaps engage WVR targets with Sidewinders launched nose-on.

Given that modern fighter aircraft have nose radomes, they would be able to detect the Hawk 127 before the Hawks would even know hostile fighters were about. Assuming the enemy fighters had sufficient BVR missiles, some of the Hawk 127's would likely be destroyed before the RAAF aircraft were even aware they were being engaged.

-Cheers

 

[StevoJH]

Does the Hawk 127 have a datalink? If it could receive data from the AEW&C it could theretically probably launch AMRAAM etc.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

While the idea of a 'threat from our north' is crazy the Hawk would be quite effective in a low intensity conflict. It can drop bombs, rockets, shoot 30mm ADEN and be very nimble in the battlefield. The PC-9 on the other hand would only be combat worthy in extreme circumstances. It has stored oxygen bottles located under the cockpit so is not gunfire or crash survivable. One bullet and it would explode like a vehicle in a Michael Bay movie.

 

[riksavage]

Amberley is the "super base" for C-17 and MRTT in RAAF service.

C-130's are ALL located at Richmond NSW.

The Caribous and their replacement -(temporarily King Air's, longer term BFA -Battlefield Airlifter) are based in Townsville, directly supporting 3 Brigade.

There is a long term force structure and basing review underway at present. Local groups have long been trying to close down RAAF Base Richmond, or at least slant the "dual use" capability heavily in favour of civilian aviation activities and with all the major "green" Army units leaving Sydney, I'd suggest they might finally win their battle...

With 3RAR losing the Para role and moving to Townsville as an air mobile battalion, it seems likely the C-130H/J fleets will find a new long term home, whether this will be Brisbane, Townsville or Darwin / Tindal remains to be seen. Townsville seems likely (and the most logical choice) to me, but I've no idea if they have the capacity to accomodate our C-130 fleet.

I'd suggest it's very unlikely they'll be based in WA...

With no C130's in WA who supports your SF immediate response sqn. Normally they will be on 4-hours notice to move in the event of a major CT incident.

Where are your closest fixed wing aviation assets which can lift the ready reserve + kit to the far North for example should an offshore platform be taken or alternatively if there's an incident overseas impacting Aus nationals requiring an immediate move to a friendly FOB?

 

[south]

TodJ is on the money. Theoretically capable (if you want to return to the days of the CAC F-86).

No datalink, no targetting pod, no radar, no RWR, no countermeasures, no Self protection jammer, Relatively low performance, low velocity gun, dumb bombs only, no fancy helmet = no SA, survivability and relatively low punch.

So yes, it could be effective, perhaps against a Zulu tribe from the 1800's. Against a modern army it is not survivable enough to be effective.

 

[weegee]

While the idea of a 'threat from our north' is crazy the Hawk would be quite effective in a low intensity conflict. It can drop bombs, rockets, shoot 30mm ADEN and be very nimble in the battlefield. The PC-9 on the other hand would only be combat worthy in extreme circumstances. It has stored oxygen bottles located under the cockpit so is not gunfire or crash survivable. One bullet and it would explode like a vehicle in a Michael Bay movie.

Thanks they sound as though they are quite a good little plane, also please don't think I was using the whole china is coming to get us mentality, it was only hypothetical and as there is nothing below us, nothing really to threaten us to the right, nothing to the left of us that only leaves up and it was a gross generalisation at that too.

 

[StevoJH]

With no C130's in WA who supports your SF immediate response sqn. Normally they will be on 4-hours notice to move in the event of a major CT incident.

Where are your closest fixed wing aviation assets which can lift the ready reserve + kit to the far North for example should an offshore platform be taken or alternatively if there's an incident overseas impacting Aus nationals requiring an immediate move to a friendly FOB?

Fixed Wing RAAF Transport Assets:
Orions @ RAAF Edinburgh in SA (no idea if they have enough to transport more then a handful of people if you leave off their normal crew).
C-130's @ RAAF Richmond in NSW.
King Airs @ RAAF East Sale in Victoria
C-17's @ RAAF Amberly in Qld
BBJ's & Bombardier Challengers @ Canberra Airport

The only Fixed wing RAAF Assets permenantly based in WA are Hawk & PC9 trainers.

Not sure what the army and navy have over there in terms of Rotary & Fixed Wing assets.

 

[StevoJH]

Going back to the previous topic about basing of Aircraft, who owns the former RAAF Schofields site?

Looking at it on Google earth (which is two year old imagery) a fair chunk of the runways have been ripped up and the rest would need resurfacing, but it could operate as a satellite of Richmond for the C130's (probably with little work given their rough field capabilities) if required?

RAAF Point Cook or possibly Avalon airport could fit the bill?

 

[Todjaeger]

Thanks they sound as though they are quite a good little plane, also please don't think I was using the whole china is coming to get us mentality, it was only hypothetical and as there is nothing below us, nothing really to threaten us to the right, nothing to the left of us that only leaves up and it was a gross generalisation at that too.

The Hawks are rather good. In a hypothetical situation, a better aircraft to use as a lightweight fighter as well as a trainer would probably be something like the South Korean Golden Eagle. In many respects, I would like to see the RAAF look at those as potential Hawk replacements.

I bring this up because IIRC, the Hawks have been getting heavily utilized for their training role (which is good), thus not much interest in having them kitted with more advanced avionics or battlefield survivable. They already getting so much use for roles which do not require such systems, there is little point in fitting them. However, alongside such usage, the airframes are starting to develop cracks, which makes me wonder whether or not the Hawk 127 LIF fleet will be able to remain in service for the planned timeframe, or if a replacement programme should be started to get a new LIF in the pipeline. From memory, it takes about 14 years for a procurement programme to go from programme definition to IOC.

Something to think about anyway.

-Cheers

 

[riksavage]

The Hawks are rather good. In a hypothetical situation, a better aircraft to use as a lightweight fighter as well as a trainer would probably be something like the South Korean Golden Eagle. In many respects, I would like to see the RAAF look at those as potential Hawk replacements.

I bring this up because IIRC, the Hawks have been getting heavily utilized for their training role (which is good), thus not much interest in having them kitted with more advanced avionics or battlefield survivable. They already getting so much use for roles which do not require such systems, there is little point in fitting them. However, alongside such usage, the airframes are starting to develop cracks, which makes me wonder whether or not the Hawk 127 LIF fleet will be able to remain in service for the planned timeframe, or if a replacement programme should be started to get a new LIF in the pipeline. From memory, it takes about 14 years for a procurement programme to go from programme definition to IOC.

Something to think about anyway.

-Cheers

The latest gen Hawk AJTS is currently on a promotional tour of the US being pitched as the best replacement for the T38. I would have thought Aus will look seriously at whatever the US finally opt for (Hawk or TA50), both manufacturers must have their eye firmly on the F35 lead-in trainer market. Not sure when the final decision is made, but it can't be far off. Has the T50 secured any orders outside of Korea?