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

[Todjaeger]

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?

I believe Indonesia placed an order for 16 Golden Eagle jets in May worth $400 mil.

What I am not sure of is whether the RAAF has started looking towards the Hawk 127 replacement or not.

While a US order would be significant, given that it is for a training aircraft, there is IMO less of an advantage for an end-user in ordering a system used by the US. For combat systems, certainly. Combat systems in use by the US will continue to undergo improvement and upgrades, until the US replaces a given system. Commonality with a US system here can reduce the risk of upgrade programmes. For a training system, there is likely to be less need for system upgrades and the programmes themselves are likely to be less risky.

What would be important would be what systems the RAAF feels are needed in an advanced jet trainer and the costs. At this point, this is where the Golden Eagle seems to win out. Having a more powerful engine package than the current Hawk trainer (the Golden Eagle is supersonic), an advanced avionics package comparable to the Hawk 200-series lightweight fighters, and with approximately the same cost.

However, if there is a new Hawk trainer version coming up, then it might include such capabilities, or have a reduced cost (inital and operating).

-Cheers

 

[ADMk2]

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?

Our Sydney based TAG-East is the main ADF CT response unit now. A short ride to the Richmond based C-130J/H. I've no doubt the Hercs and C-17's are regular temporary visitors to the West, they just aren't based there.

We haven't maintained the Ready Reserve for nearly 15 years now...

 

[gf0012-aust]

Our Sydney based TAG-East is the main ADF CT response unit now. A short ride to the Richmond based C-130J/H. I've no doubt the Hercs and C-17's are regular temporary visitors to the West, they just aren't based there.

We haven't maintained the Ready Reserve for nearly 15 years now...

there's also the non trivial issue that when an event or incident has been promoted in the public press, that the need and planning for it has already been assessed and approp response is underway.

the trucks are always to-ing and fro-ing to the west - and the split basing of the specials has never affected response times anyway - and there have been some very short notice events which never get airplay.

I'm not sure many people understand that when the PM gets woken at 4am because of a major event, she/he gets met by uniforms who trot out and provide all the options and have already started gearing up certain force elements in anticipation

even ET resulted in some force preparation quietly being positioned some 6 months before it went to custard (on the indon side)

INT has a role for a reason

 

[south]

I believe Indonesia placed an order for 16 Golden Eagle jets in May worth $400 mil.

What I am not sure of is whether the RAAF has started looking towards the Hawk 127 replacement or not.

While a US order would be significant, given that it is for a training aircraft, there is IMO less of an advantage for an end-user in ordering a system used by the US. For combat systems, certainly. Combat systems in use by the US will continue to undergo improvement and upgrades, until the US replaces a given system. Commonality with a US system here can reduce the risk of upgrade programmes. For a training system, there is likely to be less need for system upgrades and the programmes themselves are likely to be less risky.

What would be important would be what systems the RAAF feels are needed in an advanced jet trainer and the costs. At this point, this is where the Golden Eagle seems to win out. Having a more powerful engine package than the current Hawk trainer (the Golden Eagle is supersonic), an advanced avionics package comparable to the Hawk 200-series lightweight fighters, and with approximately the same cost.

However, if there is a new Hawk trainer version coming up, then it might include such capabilities, or have a reduced cost (inital and operating).

-Cheers

To the best of my knowledge they havent started looking at the Hawk replacement. They are looking at doing a Mid Life upgrade.

What you are looking at doing in a trainer (and what the hawk is okay at) is downloading training from your frontline type and getting close enough to that types performance and roles without being too complex or expensive to operate. As an example the Hawk has a Radsim (Radar Simulation system) which has enabled 76Sqn to train students in Radar manipulation/ Radar intercepts using HOTAS, capabilities that were never available with the macchi. The higher level that the students are at then flows on resulting in you either performing less training or training at a higher level on the operational type syllabus saving cost and time. At the same time by increasing the complexity and fidelity of training on the trainer you are better placed to determine what students have "the right stuff" so can weed them out or give them extra remedial training earlier and save resources in that manner.

As such IMHO you don't get much out of having a supersonic trainer like the Golden eagle (modern types having benign supersonic handling characteristics), and it would need to be looked at hard as to if having actual radar etc in your trainer is buying you anything when compared to what is actually available with other systems.

FLIGHT TEST: Pilatus PC-21 - Fast learner

Climbing further, to around 17,000ft in the military training area, we then set up the air-to-air intercepts with the PC-21 target. The two aircraft were "connected" by Mode S datalink and by designating the target PC-21 as a "foe", the aircraft symbol was displayed in red on our digital map at its real geographical position.

We carried out seven "canned" intercepts with the right-hand LCD screen set up as a radar B scope display and with the target displaying as a real aircraft on the radar screen using the datalink to supply the embedded data simulation. I selected - using HOTAS - missile type, radar modes, radar search techniques, kill parameters, lock-up and firing, and so on. Kill notification was seen on our radar screen and by the target. The HUD showed target box, range, firing cue, etc, exactly as it would for a real AMRAAM/Sparrow/IR missile type.

Audio "growl" supplemented the IR missile lock. The level and sophistication of the air-to-air embedded simulation was superb. Not only did I believe that I was flying a jet, I now believed I was flying and fighting in an F/A-18E/F. Even beyond this, the instructor, sitting front or back, has the ability to input single or multiple air-to-air targets on to the student's radar screen using a cockpit screen selection page and without the need for another PC-21 to act as a real target. Again, the training possibilities this gives for air-to-air practice are endless and the PC-21 FAST may dictate a new kind of instructor.

 

[Volkodav]

From memory one of the losing contenders for the original RAAF LIFT program was a two seat LIFT derivative of the AMX. Now that would have been a decent light attack option.

 

[Trackmaster]

there's also the non trivial issue that when an event or incident has been promoted in the public press, that the need and planning for it has already been assessed and approp response is underway.

the trucks are always to-ing and fro-ing to the west - and the split basing of the specials has never affected response times anyway - and there have been some very short notice events which never get airplay.

I'm not sure many people understand that when the PM gets woken at 4am because of a major event, she/he gets met by uniforms who trot out and provide all the options and have already started gearing up certain force elements in anticipation

even ET resulted in some force preparation quietly being positioned some 6 months before it went to custard (on the indon side)

INT has a role for a reason

Yes, and some of the folks who were involved in "positioning" some of special people were a little peeved they were not permitted to nominate certain dates for being in certain areas. It had quite an impact on some of their entitlements.

 

[Todjaeger]

To the best of my knowledge they havent started looking at the Hawk replacement. They are looking at doing a Mid Life upgrade.

What you are looking at doing in a trainer (and what the hawk is okay at) is downloading training from your frontline type and getting close enough to that types performance and roles without being too complex or expensive to operate. As an example the Hawk has a Radsim (Radar Simulation system) which has enabled 76Sqn to train students in Radar manipulation/ Radar intercepts using HOTAS, capabilities that were never available with the macchi. The higher level that the students are at then flows on resulting in you either performing less training or training at a higher level on the operational type syllabus saving cost and time. At the same time by increasing the complexity and fidelity of training on the trainer you are better placed to determine what students have "the right stuff" so can weed them out or give them extra remedial training earlier and save resources in that manner.

As such IMHO you don't get much out of having a supersonic trainer like the Golden eagle (modern types having benign supersonic handling characteristics), and it would need to be looked at hard as to if having actual radar etc in your trainer is buying you anything when compared to what is actually available with other systems.

FLIGHT TEST: Pilatus PC-21 - Fast learner

Hmm... I was under the impression that with the usage the Hawk's have been getting, plus some of the fatigue cracks which have already been found (and developed earlier than expected) and that aircraft have been damaged in flight ops... That the Hawk was expected to run out of useful service life in the early 2020's, basically around the time the SHornets would have reached a decade of service. I certainly could be wrong about that though.

Now for RAAF fast jet training, I would expect that the primary driver for the replacement would be for the chosen aircraft to meet the minimum capabilities for the RAAF training, whether that means having an onboard radar, radar sim, or radar with sim, etc. After being able to meet the required training outputs, I expect the next driver would be cost, and this is both purchase and ongoing/operating costs.

From what I have seen of the costs, this is where the Golden Eagle seems to have an edge over the Hawk (or at least previous versions). While actually having a fitted radar and supersonic performance might not matter as much in training, it could allow more effective operational use in an emergency. Or it could allow less expensive training for allies, like when the RAAF conducted JTAC/CAS training with elements of the NZDF in NZ. Now if the Golden Eagle could provide the RAAF with the needed outputs, as well as some of these 'extra' capabilities for the same price as the Hawk, or perhaps even less, then it would make sense (to me at least) to go with the more Golden Eagle.

Now if these extra capabilities make training more difficult for the RAAF, and/or the training is more expensive, that would be different.

As for the PC-21... Can that really replace a fast jet for training? I could certainly see it replacing the PC-9/A, but not being a pilot, am uncertain if it makes a different for jet training.

-Cheers

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Hmm... I was under the impression that with the usage the Hawk's have been getting, plus some of the fatigue cracks which have already been found (and developed earlier than expected) and that aircraft have been damaged in flight ops... That the Hawk was expected to run out of useful service life in the early 2020's, basically around the time the SHornets would have reached a decade of service. I certainly could be wrong about that though.

The life of type of the Hawk as acquired was only until 2025. There is a new project AIR 5438 to provide an MLU/CAP for the Hawk to cover the 2015-2025/30 timeframe before its retirement.

From what I have seen of the costs, this is where the Golden Eagle seems to have an edge over the Hawk (or at least previous versions). While actually having a fitted radar and supersonic performance might not matter as much in training, it could allow more effective operational use in an emergency. Or it could allow less expensive training for allies, like when the RAAF conducted JTAC/CAS training with elements of the NZDF in NZ. Now if the Golden Eagle could provide the RAAF with the needed outputs, as well as some of these 'extra' capabilities for the same price as the Hawk, or perhaps even less, then it would make sense (to me at least) to go with the more Golden Eagle.

The idea that the Golden Eagle is cheaper than any version of the Hawk is pretty bogus. No matter how much cheaper Korean labour costs are compared to British (and they aren’t) you aren’t going to compensate for an airframe 1.5 times bigger, a much more expensive engine, radar, etc. Plus of course twice the fuel burn for every flying hour. Further since the RAAF uses Hawks for part of JTAC training the need for high end platform replacement is not significant.

The argument for a Golden Eagle type aircraft for lead in fighter training (LIFT) is a lot more for forces who want a combat capable training platform so they can use it when the balloon goes up. Makes a lot of sense for counties with active borders like Korea, Poland, Israel. For Australia where our trainers are really just that and the likelihood of a Hugh White mass invasion of the continent scenario is next to zero spending extra on a combat capable trainer just takes money away from our combat fleet.

As for the PC-21... Can that really replace a fast jet for training? I could certainly see it replacing the PC-9/A, but not being a pilot, am uncertain if it makes a different for jet training.

What is happening is more tactical flying skills are being pushed down to earlier in the syllabus thanks to the enhanced systems capability of new aircraft. This is why Raytheon kitted out a CT-4E with a full glass cockpit and the flight control software of a T-6B Texan so at the primary flying training level new pilots are learning to operate data intensive cockpits as well as fly a plane. When they get to the next level (PC-21, T-6B, etc) they are now learning situational awareness and radar modes and the like.

It doesn’t mean these aircraft are ‘replacing’ the fast jet for LIFT but rather that the pilot doesn’t need to learn these more basic skills on the more expensive platform (accountant’s perspective), has a better grounding earlier on in these skills (instructor’s perspective) and can spend more flying hours training in fast paced, air combat (warfighter’s perspective). This is really no different to how flying training has been conducted in the past just as the fundamental inputs into combat flying skills have increased these new elements are being incorporated earlier on in the syllabus. Just the same as having your new trainee beat up a cloud on their first flight; it’s all about instilling the right skills and attitudes from the get go.

 

[south]

Hmm... I was under the impression that with the usage the Hawk's have been getting, plus some of the fatigue cracks which have already been found (and developed earlier than expected) and that aircraft have been damaged in flight ops... That the Hawk was expected to run out of useful service life in the early 2020's, basically around the time the SHornets would have reached a decade of service. I certainly could be wrong about that though.

Now for RAAF fast jet training, I would expect that the primary driver for the replacement would be for the chosen aircraft to meet the minimum capabilities for the RAAF training, whether that means having an onboard radar, radar sim, or radar with sim, etc. After being able to meet the required training outputs, I expect the next driver would be cost, and this is both purchase and ongoing/operating costs.

From what I have seen of the costs, this is where the Golden Eagle seems to have an edge over the Hawk (or at least previous versions). While actually having a fitted radar and supersonic performance might not matter as much in training, it could allow more effective operational use in an emergency. Or it could allow less expensive training for allies, like when the RAAF conducted JTAC/CAS training with elements of the NZDF in NZ. Now if the Golden Eagle could provide the RAAF with the needed outputs, as well as some of these 'extra' capabilities for the same price as the Hawk, or perhaps even less, then it would make sense (to me at least) to go with the more Golden Eagle.

Now if these extra capabilities make training more difficult for the RAAF, and/or the training is more expensive, that would be different.

As for the PC-21... Can that really replace a fast jet for training? I could certainly see it replacing the PC-9/A, but not being a pilot, am uncertain if it makes a different for jet training.

-Cheers

Agree with most of that and I'm certainly not suggesting that a PC21 could be used as a Lead in Fighter trainer, was just highlighting the utility of the simulation systems available these days.

I would be surprised to see a supersonic trainer fitted with an actual radar cheaper than a Hawk over the whole life of type. At the moment the RAAF already uses the Hawk for JTAC training, and in CAS a radar doesnt buy you much.

For myself the RAAF hasnt seen the need for a light attack type to supplement its frontline fighters since they have been operating the Sabre so I cant see that happening now. As such I dont believe that the extra performance and a radar offers that much utility, except perhaps as an adversery aircraft. Where I would expect that something like the T50 may have an edge over something like the Hawk will be in high AOA capabilities given that the JSF doesn't have a 2 seat model, and they may want to shift that experience to something earlier in the pipeline.

 

[Todjaeger]

The idea that the Golden Eagle is cheaper than any version of the Hawk is pretty bogus. No matter how much cheaper Korean labour costs are compared to British (and they aren’t) you aren’t going to compensate for an airframe 1.5 times bigger, a much more expensive engine, radar, etc. Plus of course twice the fuel burn for every flying hour. Further since the RAAF uses Hawks for part of JTAC training the need for high end platform replacement is not significant.

The argument for a Golden Eagle type aircraft for lead in fighter training (LIFT) is a lot more for forces who want a combat capable training platform so they can use it when the balloon goes up. Makes a lot of sense for counties with active borders like Korea, Poland, Israel. For Australia where our trainers are really just that and the likelihood of a Hugh White mass invasion of the continent scenario is next to zero spending extra on a combat capable trainer just takes money away from our combat fleet.

With respect to the cost... The reason I had brought that up, was that from when I crunched some of the numbers, it appeared that the Golden Eagle was available for between US$25 - 28 mil. while the price paid for the Hawks was ~US$ 29 - 30 mil.

Granted, it was at least a year ago since I ran those numbers so my memory could be faulty. And we also know that when discussing costings, there are a number of different sets of numbers which might be provided.

Unlike some of Hugh White's scenarios, what I had in mind was more like if a low-end CAP was needed for a sporting event, or a low-end CAS capability was needed for joint training or an exercise... Instead of deploying the HUG Bugs, or SHornets or F-35's, if some extra light attack jet trainers were used instead, and this would only be the situation if the cost to acquire and reasonably operate was similar to or less than other fast jet training options. I see no reason to spend Gucci money to get Gucci training kit at the expense of Gucci combat kit. OTOH if Gucci training kit can be purchased without spending that amount of money... Why not?

Therefore, if someone could take another look at the prices for the Hawk and Golden Eagle to see if they really are comparable, I would appreciate it.

-Cheers

 

[ADMk2]

there's also the non trivial issue that when an event or incident has been promoted in the public press, that the need and planning for it has already been assessed and approp response is underway.

the trucks are always to-ing and fro-ing to the west - and the split basing of the specials has never affected response times anyway - and there have been some very short notice events which never get airplay.

I'm not sure many people understand that when the PM gets woken at 4am because of a major event, she/he gets met by uniforms who trot out and provide all the options and have already started gearing up certain force elements in anticipation

even ET resulted in some force preparation quietly being positioned some 6 months before it went to custard (on the indon side)

INT has a role for a reason

Agreed, and if one is not even slightly familiar with NCTC arrangements within Australia, I'm not sure why they'd bother criticising basing arrangements for ADF SOCOMD units.

They are far from first responders to a domestic CT incident...

 

[StevoJH]

Agreed, and if one is not even slightly familiar with NCTC arrangements within Australia, I'm not sure why they'd bother criticising basing arrangements for ADF SOCOMD units.

They are far from first responders to a domestic CT incident...

This question could upset some people, but i'll ask it anyway.

Are the "local's" trained up enough to hold the fort or deal with most situations until TAG(E) or TAG(W) could get there?

There is presumably quite a difference between someone barricading themselves in their house and a bunch of loonies running riot in a shopping centre.

 

[ADMk2]

This question could upset some people, but i'll ask it anyway.

Are the "local's" trained up enough to hold the fort or deal with most situations until TAG(E) or TAG(W) could get there?

There is presumably quite a difference between someone barricading themselves in their house and a bunch of loonies running riot in a shopping centre.

Indeed.

We have a more than a few CT capabilities in Australia. In fact it is estimated that most modern CT incidents (based on recent events, IED or mass shootings) would be long over before ADF would even be alerted for a need to deploy to a domestic incident.

Our local police tactical teams are VERY good...



If the traditional 70's style long term hostage situation took over, ADF might get a call up. If an offshore longer term incident occurred (such as the MV Pong Su) ADF might get a call up.

Otherwise it's unlikely a PFC will ever make the call to activate ADF. It simply won't be available in time.

 

[gf0012-aust]

There is presumably quite a difference between someone barricading themselves in their house and a bunch of loonies running riot in a shopping centre.

Local police tacticals are more than able to take on any of the domestic events.

I can only see AFP getting in as first respondents if its a Federal building and there are jurisdiction issues. they've just stood up their own unit with all the gucci gear and have been through their paces with ADO CT. I don't know enough about their ability though as they're very new (as a unit in the new first respondent construct)

ADO CT would be green water and further, but be that as it may, when my daughter was doing maritime security they used to have eastern seaboard police tacticals practice insertions onto her vessel (55,000 - 75,00o tonne cruiseliners) as soon as they hit return helo range. eg mid greenwater limits...

 

[south]

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...-become-growlers/story-e6frg8yo-1226170085768

The Australian is reporting that defence is set to buy growlers... This apparent purchase if confirmed will add a lot in EW capabilities to the ADF as a whole in any level of conflict...

 

[Abraham Gubler]

RAAF fighter-bombers to become 'Growlers' | The Australian

The Australian is reporting that defence is set to buy growlers... This apparent purchase if confirmed will add a lot in EW capabilities to the ADF as a whole in any level of conflict...

It may be closer than they think...

 

[Milne Bay]

It may be closer than they think...

Is this another indication that the JSF is further off than comfortable for the ADF?

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Is this another indication that the JSF is further off than comfortable for the ADF?

Ahh no. The actual original capability requirement for the Growler is to support the F-35 from the 2025-2030 time period.

The push for the Growler now (not 15 years from now) comes a lot from the RAAF's growing interest and expertise in fast jet ECM. The F-111 with the Elta jammer blew everyone away at ECADEX back in 2005 and the push has been on for more of since then. No surprise that part of the Super Hornet acquistion was to learn more about Growler. The USN project manager for the RAAF Super Hornet was an ECMO O-6. I think she was even one of the first test ECMOs on the Growler.

Add to that all the capability that Growler brings to all sorts of dark and spooky things like fighting terrorists and no wonder the Govt. lines up to pay for it.

 

[ngatimozart]

Looks like the govt is making a move on the Caribou replacement. They have formally asked the USG about pricing and availability for 10 Alenia C27J Spartans
Govt requests pricing & availability for a RAAF C-27J buy | Australian Aviation Magazine

 

[lopez]

Looks like the govt is making a move on the Caribou replacement. They have formally asked the USG about pricing and availability for 10 Alenia C27J Spartans
Govt requests pricing & availability for a RAAF C-27J buy | Australian Aviation Magazine

how many Caribous did we used to have?