Nope. The EuroHawk is the same airframe as the Triton but carries a SIGINT payload. But forget the Germans the Triton (BAMS) is the choice of the USN for their ocean patrol system in partnership with the P-8 Poseidon (MMA). Which is oddly enough the same package planned for the RAAF. Which is of course because we joined the USN’s program.
Royal Australian Air Force [RAAF] News, Discussions and Updates
Nope. The EuroHawk is the same airframe as the Triton but carries a SIGINT payload. But forget the Germans the Triton (BAMS) is the choice of the USN for their ocean patrol system in partnership with the P-8 Poseidon (MMA). Which is oddly enough the same package planned for the RAAF. Which is of course because we joined the USN’s program.
Mariner was not suitable in the eval data that I saw from various reviews - and not just RAAF
The flight profiles don't support the RAAF ISR mission profile. It did however support the BPC mission set.
This is based on data I saw 5 years ago - and I was working in private industry as a contractor
And even that was a matter for debate at the time. There were Customs people who were against the Mariner (Predator B) because it was a patrol asset and didn’t help them gather evidence to secure a conviction. They wanted a UAV more like Scan Eagle that they could deploy into an area of interest for a day or so to secure photographs to be presented in court at a later date.
Of course the Mariner would be very useful providing part of the Coastwatch capability and Cobham (the commercial provider) have had an agreement with General Atomics for years, almost decade(s), to develop the capability to offer such services to BPC. But because of issues with securing funding the turn-to capability of choice for BPC has been satellite surveillance. Which you can buy hours of per need rather than invest in a flight of Mariners on contract for a couple of years. Which would be more capable and cheaper is most likely the Mariner but if you don’t have the long term funding approval its eat through the discretional funds buying satellite hours.
The data I saw on each platforms capability through the flight regime was pretty compelling - GH sustainment costs would have gone through the roof.
As for Sat hours and sustainment/discretionary/contingency costs, unmanned/manned is preferred (sat costs are mind blowingly cancerous on the $$$ vote)
I seriously doubt that any serious attention is being given to doing a lazarus this early on UAS - the govt is too busy killing off sustainment and training costs to make sure it hits its line in the sand on a budget surplus.
Any number of people currently in the ADO in here would know whats been killed off out of DCP to make sure this happens. I'm not going to be the one however to trot out the numbers in public
RAAF certainly would be surprised. Although on the basis that the central agencies know more about what Defence needs rather than what the uniforms want - then we're just as likely to buy 50 of them for RAAF and transfer them to BPC in 5 years time. All TIC of course.
GH does provide a fantastic capability but the costs are just too high. And they will have little incentive to reduce costs now that the US has selected it for BAMS.
UAVs (or UAS/RPVs) such as th Avenger seem likely to be able to provide capabilities only slightly reduced but at far lower costs. I believe putting money into a less stealthy maritime Avenger could bode well for the ADF, especially with combined with a Mariner purchase.
It would allow some commonality and depending on how the Avenger develops, our first true UCAV.
So Avenger/Mariner for the RAAF, Scan Eagle/Integrator for the RAN and Army (scrap Shadow).
Some just needs to develop a SM2-sized UAV capable of launching from a VLS and we're good to go.
UAVs (or UAS/RPVs) such as th Avenger seem likely to be able to provide capabilities only slightly reduced but at far lower costs. I believe putting money into a less stealthy maritime Avenger could bode well for the ADF, especially with combined with a Mariner purchase.
It would allow some commonality and depending on how the Avenger develops, our first true UCAV.
So Avenger/Mariner for the RAAF, Scan Eagle/Integrator for the RAN and Army (scrap Shadow).
Some just needs to develop a SM2-sized UAV capable of launching from a VLS and we're good to go.
Why the Avenger ? it totally misses the point of what we want, we don't want a weapons carrier. Personally I also believe that for use at sea the Scan Eagle just will not cut it, too slow for starters, not too bad for the Army, but at sea I would like to have further endurance matched with speed to cover a much broader area.
Why would you want to waste a VLS canister for a UAV ?
Last edited:
We don't want a weapons carrier yet. We seem to be a decade behind the Americans, at some point like them we'll figure that adding munitions is a good thing too. They don't have to be weapons either, being able to drop survival equipment to a sinking yacht would be useful.
I do agree that the Avenger in its current form is too combat orientated and would need modification.
The Scan Eagles' new larger cousin, the Integrator would better than the Scan Eagle itself. Although still only for low altitude aircraft
The point behind using a VLS tube to launch a UAV is to provide an answer on how to deploy a decent sized UAV from a Frigate without introducing too much new equipment.
A VLS-launched UAV with a small jet engine like the old V1 Buzz bombs could work well.
I do agree that the Avenger in its current form is too combat orientated and would need modification.
The Scan Eagles' new larger cousin, the Integrator would better than the Scan Eagle itself. Although still only for low altitude aircraft
The point behind using a VLS tube to launch a UAV is to provide an answer on how to deploy a decent sized UAV from a Frigate without introducing too much new equipment.
A VLS-launched UAV with a small jet engine like the old V1 Buzz bombs could work well.
exactly that - which is why it didn't rate highly.
the role is BAMS, ISR and strong C4 integration requirements.
Its not a companion assert for the P8's by any means. GH ticks far more boxes.
ADO-NCW might have had some hiccups along the way, but in the selection matrix for an assessment its still sitting there.
The USAF decision to end block 30 acquisition has nothing to do with any decision to buy block 40.
The plan was to buy both.
The plan is now to shelve block 30 and perhaps reduce the buy of block 40.
Fair enough ... but you don't see many cab companies driving beamers either.
Without knowing the mission it is impossible to know which aircraft is best suited ... but if we are talking about looking out for trespassing fishing boats and people smugglers then we don't need bleeding edge technology.
Last edited:
Too high? Compared to what? No-one, not even the USN yet, has deployed a capability that meets the requirements we have for a maritime UAV capability. How do you know GH is "too" expensive?
What is the budget for this program in the DCP (AIR-7000 Phase 1B)? $2-$3b? Sounds about right to cover a GH acquisition, especially given the requirement is a for a HALE UAS system.
There is an interesting thing about cost reduction. The cheaper the product, the more you can afford to purchase (assuming your sustainment budget suffices).
How do Australia's sustainment budgets tend to look (ie: ordinary)?
Hence why we don't tend to get large numbers of platforms...
And you'd scrap all the investment we've made into our Shadow 200 systems for what reason? The money we've already spent is "too high"?
Okay...
It's the sustainment costs that worry me.
Between the RAAFs C17s, F35s, Growlers and now Global Hawk; and the RANs OCVs, subs and LHDs the ongoing costs are going to be very high.
The latest rumour from The Australian is up to 3 battalions are looking dicey and I would prefer the army not return to a hollow shell. Running around the bush yelling *Bang, bang* like in the 90s.
---------------
The Shadow 200 I believe is a good intro capability but the Army really needs a UAV that is runway-independant and the RAAF should be looking for larger, armed aircraft.
Between the RAAFs C17s, F35s, Growlers and now Global Hawk; and the RANs OCVs, subs and LHDs the ongoing costs are going to be very high.
The latest rumour from The Australian is up to 3 battalions are looking dicey and I would prefer the army not return to a hollow shell. Running around the bush yelling *Bang, bang* like in the 90s.
---------------
The Shadow 200 I believe is a good intro capability but the Army really needs a UAV that is runway-independant and the RAAF should be looking for larger, armed aircraft.
Which is all to do with financing. Being that in the five year outlook its cheaper to keep the U-2 in place of the Blk 30 GH. All of this is a long way from your initial BS statement that USAF was no longer buying GH.
Nor does one see many cab companies conducting ocean surveillance and strategic reconnaissance.
There seems to be this idea out there that there is some mythical ‘cheap’ alternative to UAVs. There is but they can’t do the mission.
If you don’t know what the mission is why make such strong counter claims? As to the lack of need for bleeding edge technology to find fishing boats being used for illegal fishing or people smuggling that’s more ignorance on your behalf. These boats are extremely hard to find. They are small wooden vessels with tiny radar cross sections. The only way to find them without bleeding edge technology is to have a fleet of hundreds of visual surveillance aircraft. And that will only work in the day and good weather.
Kind of like how the sustainment costs were high with F-111s, HMAS Melbourne, etc ? Defence acquisition planning factors in sustainment costs and in some cases with new systems it will be cheaper. For example the OCV replacing four different ship type training and sustainment systems.
The defence force as planned in the old DCP is affordable as long as the Government doesn’t pull the rug out from under them. We can all agree that the Gillard Government is a short term aberration and once the situation has returned to normal with the Coalition and a future ALP govt. able to regain the confidence of the people (presumably by being the opposite of the Gillard Government) that steady state funding will be restored to the ADF.
... and if you don't know the mission then why are you dismissing the possibility that cheaper technologies might not be able to handle the job?
The reason we have patrol boats instead of battleships patrolling Australia's north is that they are affordable, and are adequate for the job. A GH sitting in a hanger because it is too expensive to operate would be worse than useless ... and operating costs was one of the reasons the USAF canned the GH in the first place.
I don't recall anyone in my entire Regiment yelling bang even once out bush in the 90's and early 00's...
Scan Eagle was Army's introduction to UAV ops. Shadow is the permanent capability. Why exactly does it need a runway-independant UAV? Shadow 200 only needs a very small space to land, especially if you have the arrestor system and the launch system to take off, not a 3000m runway...
RAAF does operate a larger UAV. The Heron and whilst it would be nice if we had an armed capability, I don't see it as a pressing issue, given most of our ops are about to end anyway..
If you are talking about the Royal Australian Regiment I recall a pre deployment to Butterworth exercise in 1989 where we had no link, 5 blank round per man per day, no whiz bangs and hot box rations.
I suppose that wasn't the 90's but 4 months laterand it would have been. If you were ODF you didn't have many restrictions - outside of the ODF things were different.
I do know the mission. I’ve bothered to read the documents, attend the briefings, etc. Which is why I’m laughing on the inside at this mythical ‘cheaper technologies’ you keep referring to.
LOL. If this is the head space you are working in you’ve got serious problems.
The GH isn’t so expensive to operate that you make out. Especially compared to a ‘cheaper’ option which you haven’t even explained what is and how it could do the mission. Costs compared to a converted business jet with radar and FLIR? GH would certainly be cheaper per flying hour and provide much longer dwell time which has significant operational benefits.
USAF has cancelled Block 30 GH because in a limited five year outlook buying new builds and flying them will not work out cheaper than keeping the U-2s they were meant to replace in service. This has nothing to do with any possible cost benefit analysis for the RAAF and BPC.
2/14 Light Horse.
We were well outside the ODF, but still had hotbox rations largely with the occasional 5 man packs, both of which were infinitely preferable to 24hr ratpacks as far as I was concerned...
Do any of you remember "pino gell" (or however it was spelt) in the 24hr ratpack? Reminds me of the stuff the other half feeds the baby, oh and what about the tinned steak and egg?
I remember the A,B, C,D and E variants of the 24hr packs and most vividly, "bunghole" which came in the 10 man ratpacks and was awesome...