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

[Abraham Gubler]

We realise that we haven't a hope in hell of getting anywhere, but we have the unmittigated gall to try for cash compensation as a result of our own stupidity.

If that’s the case then they are very ignorant of parliament’s powers. The houses of parliament in Australia have the capacity to find someone in contempt of their house but if they did so the punishment is limited to up to 6 months in prison and/or a fine of up to $5,000 for an individual (or up to $25,000 for a corporation). But contempt of parliament is strictly limited to someone acting in a way to impede the free functioning of parliament. Being critical of a report made to a parliamentary committee is a very long bow to draw in claiming contempt of parliament.

If APA or Repsim have a problem with statements made about them to other people then they have recourse to defamation for damages. But fair and reasonable criticism is not defamation. I’ve had run ins with Peter Goon before where he has responded to any criticism of his work with a declaration of defamation and a demand for compensation or right of reply and so on. Such demands are totally baseless in law and can be ignored as vexatious attempts to silence fair and reasonable criticism.

 

[ADMk2]

If Goon et al think they've been defamed by the criticism their efforts have attracted, then they should stick to "Techno-Strategic thinking" because they don't have a clue on Australian Law.

For starters anything presented to the Senate Committee is an occasion of absolute privilige. In other words, I could write the most defamatory statements possible about APA and if I submitted it to this Senate Committee, Messirs Goon, Kopp, RepSim etc have no cause for action against me whatsoever.

Secondly, it is an absolute defence to defamation for anyone to publish documents or excerpts of documents submitted to this Committee.

Thirdly, there is an absolute defence to defamation of the grounds of triviality. Anyone who bothers to comment on APA's thoughts and opinions, is commenting on some of the most trivial things imaginable anyway...

Ergo, have at it people...

:duel

 

[VerySneaky]

Jdam-er

Hi guys, sorry for the somewhat ignorant question; I'm looking to find out more about the JDAM-ER development, and can't seem to find any sort of detailed reports. Obviously a lot of this would be classified, but I cant seem to find much other than news reports. I couldn't see anything of substance on dmo or dsto either, would anybody have any idea where I could find some information?

I'm doing an export feasibility analysis for a university course

Cheers in advance

 

[ADMk2]

Hi guys, sorry for the somewhat ignorant question; I'm looking to find out more about the JDAM-ER development, and can't seem to find any sort of detailed reports. Obviously a lot of this would be classified, but I cant seem to find much other than news reports. I couldn't see anything of substance on dmo or dsto either, would anybody have any idea where I could find some information?

I'm doing an export feasibility analysis for a university course

Cheers in advance

General Dynamics manufactures the Mk.82 warhead.

Boeing manufacturers the JDAM kit.

Boeing manufactures the wing-kit. I think exportability isn't going to be up to Australia. We'll more than likely just see royalties for any sales...

For what it's worth here are some links on it:

Boeing Winged JDAM Completes 1st Round of Tests

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/a...r-wing-kit-completes-windtunnel-tests-375969/

Boeing Aims For JDAM-ER Deliveries In 2015

Related and Useful Sites - Defence Export Unit - DMO

DSTO > News > Smart bombs score another hit in extended range tests

http://www.dsto.defence.gov.au/attachments/DSTO0068 ADS AutumWinter_web.pdf

Very good background in this link:

http://www.dsto.defence.gov.au/attachments/Innovations in Defence Science.pdf

 

[Abraham Gubler]

General Dynamics manufactures the Mk.82 warhead.

Mk 82s for the RAAF are produced by Thales (ex ADI) at Benalla.

 

[VerySneaky]

General Dynamics manufactures the Mk.82 warhead.

Boeing manufacturers the JDAM kit.

Boeing manufactures the wing-kit. I think exportability isn't going to be up to Australia. We'll more than likely just see royalties for any sales...

For what it's worth here are some links on it:

Very good background in this link:

Cheers mate! My impression was that the wing kit is developed by Boeing Australia in conjunction with the DSTO. I suppose my assumption is that because the DSTO are involved, and the export would be the wing kit by itself, there would be potential for export from Australia.. Obviously there would be politics involved and i suspect the US might want some input as well. Is this an overly optimistic assumption?

 

[ADMk2]

Cheers mate! My impression was that the wing kit is developed by Boeing Australia in conjunction with the DSTO. I suppose my assumption is that because the DSTO are involved, and the export would be the wing kit by itself, there would be potential for export from Australia.. Obviously there would be politics involved and i suspect the US might want some input as well. Is this an overly optimistic assumption?

This wing kit idea was conceived in the Defence Research Centre, Salisbury in the 70's. RAAF placed a formal research request in relation to this technology with DSTO in 1977 and it was further developed into the Kerkanya glide bomb kit until 1991 when funding was cut.

It seems to have laid dormant until 1995 when AWA Defence Industries, purchased the rights to the IP for this product and the right to commercialise it. AWA Defence Industries was subsequently taken over by BAE Systems Australia who now presumably own the rights to this product.

Now as Boeing "manufactures" the JDAM tailkit based on components sourced from a number of suppliers (such as ATK, I believe for the Laser guidance kit for the Laser JDAM variant) and we know from announcements recently that Boeing will be manufacturing these wing-kits.

I believe therefore that Boeing must have acquired the rights to manufacture this wing-kit under licence or they have acquired ALL of the IP for this product from BAE Systems Australia and therefore now own the product.

Whether the Australian Government has retained any residual rights in the product (to be collected via royalties or some such) is the real issue. Given that Boeing considers this a non-US program and is actually a program between itself and the Australian Government, it may well be that we've chosen to allow Boeing to produce, market and sell this product on our behalf and we'll get a percentage of any sales made, I'm not sure.

But that is what I suspect is the case.

Thanks for the correction there Abe. Does Benalla produce the full Mk 80 and BLU series for the RAAF and presumably other customers?

Edit: Nevermind. I see Benalla are currently only producing 500 and 2000lbs bombs at present.

http://www.thalesgroup.com/Countries/Australia/Documents/Armaments_EO_Manufacturing_brochure/

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Thanks for the correction there Abe. Does Benalla produce the full Mk 80 and BLU series for the RAAF and presumably other customers?

I don’t know if they have the IP for the BLU-109/116 weapons (2000 lbs ground penetrating) but they do for the full series of Mk 80 bombs (250, 500, 1000, 2000 #). Some of the other BLUs are just Mk 80s with more modern fillers so could easily be produced by Thales if they also make the different sort of filler. They have all sorts of bizarre IP for munitions which were acquired to potentially supply a full scale WWIII. Munitions like 175mm and 203mm heavy artillery and all sorts of different air weapons. But they don’t have the plant to forge shells bigger than 105mm (Mk 80s are cast casing) but such could easily be acquired if the Govt. was willing to pay for it (a few tens of millions).

 

[jack412]

OH dear, the review is out and it seems Clown Club are fools AGAIN
House of Representatives Committees – Parliament of Australia

Defence countered this view at a public hearing, disputing APA’s criticisms of the JSF’s aerodynamic performance and stealth capabilities relative to its future potential adversaries, stating:
. . . these are inconsistent with years of detailed analysis that has been undertaken by Defence, the JSF program office, Lockheed Martin, the US services and the eight other partner nations. While aircraft developments such as the Russian PAK-FA or the Chinese J-20, as argued by Airpower Australia, show that threats we could potentially face are becoming increasingly sophisticated, there is nothing new regarding development of these aircraft to change Defence’s assessment.
Specifically, Defence told the Committee that the JSF is performing well in a number of important areas:

Defence advised the Committee of its view that APA and RepSim’s analysis and simulations are ‘basically flawed’ due to the use of incorrect assumptions and a lack of knowledge of the classified F-35 performance information.

Lockheed Martin agreed with this view, indicating that simulations of what a JSF or other fourth or fifth generation fighter are capable of can only be conducted if the simulator has access to all of the classified information about the aircraft. They stated:
. . . trying to simulate something that you do not fully understand is based on false assumptions and false ground rules. If you go in with false assumptions and false ground rules, you will get false answers.

 

[gf0012-aust]

. . . trying to simulate something that you do not fully understand is based on false assumptions and false ground rules. If you go in with false assumptions and false ground rules, you will get false answers.

garbage in - garbage out.

the best advice I received last year was to ignore and stay away from all of them and don't bother trying to inject facts.

 

[aussienscale]

Just as a distraction, I got buzzed by a couple of Shornet's doing runs into the Evans Head Bombing Range today, see them pretty often, they do a loop in from the ocean and circle around over the National Park to line up for their runs, brings them over the top of the highway where they turn right near a rest stop, don't care what anyone says, watching these things do their stuff if pretty awesome, will have to get down there one day and take some pics

Cheers

 

[kiwi in exile]

An emerging capability gap?
"An Australian government audit warns that delays in the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter programme could keep the Royal Australian Air Force's (RAAF) Boeing F/A-18A/B Hornet aircraft in service beyond 2020."
RAAF F/A-18A/B use could extend beyond 2020: audit

Theres also a link to an audit report on the management of the f35 program on the f35 thread. Apparently everythings all fine there.

 

[ADMk2]

An emerging capability gap?
"An Australian government audit warns that delays in the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter programme could keep the Royal Australian Air Force's (RAAF) Boeing F/A-18A/B Hornet aircraft in service beyond 2020."
RAAF F/A-18A/B use could extend beyond 2020: audit

Theres also a link to an audit report on the management of the f35 program on the f35 thread. Apparently everythings all fine there.

Where is the capability gap if the Hornets and Super Hornets remain in-service until the F-35 is ready to replace them?

There are a number of life extension studies for the Hornet being undertaken at present by USN, Canada etc beyond centre-barrel replacement, given the delays in F-35.

I can't see it being a problem if more work has to be done on the Hornet fleet to keep them viable until 2020. Financially may be an issue, but assuming there is enough cash available, keeping them in the air shouldn't be an issue.

 

[Milne Bay]

Where is the capability gap if the Hornets and Super Hornets remain in-service until the F-35 is ready to replace them?

There are a number of life extension studies for the Hornet being undertaken at present by USN, Canada etc beyond centre-barrel replacement, given the delays in F-35.

I can't see it being a problem if more work has to be done on the Hornet fleet to keep them viable until 2020. Financially may be an issue, but assuming there is enough cash available, keeping them in the air shouldn't be an issue.

Indeed, but history is against this happening.
Is there an air to air refuelling capability gap? Yes, and the tankers we used to own are now owned and operated by someone else. The MRTT's are not ready.
Is there a STOL capability gap? Yes - caribou replacements are still not here.
Is there a multi role naval combat aircraft capability gap? Yes the MH-60R's are not here yet.
It just doesn't seem possible that multiple capabilities can be allowed to lapse - but they have.

 

[hauritz]

I have always wondered why just 14 F-35 are planned for the first tranche.

Will they form an operational squadron or are they going to be used for training?

 

[ADMk2]

Indeed, but history is against this happening.
Is there an air to air refuelling capability gap? Yes, and the tankers we used to own are now owned and operated by someone else. The MRTT's are not ready.
Is there a STOL capability gap? Yes - caribou replacements are still not here.
Is there a multi role naval combat aircraft capability gap? Yes the MH-60R's are not here yet.
It just doesn't seem possible that multiple capabilities can be allowed to lapse - but they have.

There isn't a capability gap in tactical airlift, maritime warfare helicopter or refuelling. All have been covered as required until replacement capabilities were acquired.

Additional S-70B flights have been generated, C-130H and King Air 350 have covered the light tactical airlift and Omega and allied refuelling capability has been contracted.

However these interim measures are quite a bit different to covering the entire tactical fight force (not counting the strike-recon group) is something entirely different.

As I said (though you must have read differently) where is the capability gap if the Hornets and Shornets remain n-service until JSF is ready?

 

[Massive]

where is the capability gap

Good point AD.

Can't help but feel that if there was a genuine capability gap in the ADF that needs addressing it would be insufficient fully operational ASLAVs.

This suggests the (rather unglamourous) need to accelerate at least part of Land 400.

Piranha V perhaps...

This capability is used all the time.

For the RAAF - the capability can be maintained/holes plugged relatively easily given timelines. ASLAVs are needed (for operational use and preparation) now.

Protected engineering vehicles would seem to be the other.

Regards,

Massive

 

[Raven22]

Here's a question - why is that everytime you actually want something off the RAAF you can't get it because its a weekend or after midday on a Friday and everyone is knocked off, but here it is on a public holiday and I've got Hornets incessantly buzzing my house? Bugger off you bastards!

 

[Volkodav]

Here's a question - why is that everytime you actually want something off the RAAF you can't get it because its a weekend or after midday on a Friday and everyone is knocked off, but here it is on a public holiday and I've got Hornets incessantly buzzing my house? Bugger off you bastards!

Probably visiting USN or USMC aircraft as the RAAF never works on public holidays.

 

[Raven22]

Seriously Hornets, bugger off! Don't you know there's budget cuts going on?