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

[hauritz]

Actually a lot of countries seem to have cut back their Maritime Aircraft fleets. The USN are replacing around 200 Orions with 117 P-8s. Most European nations are cutting back on aircraft. In fact the British have paid off their Nimrods without any replacement.

In Australia's case I am not sure what the thinking is. I find it hard to believe that a Global Hawk flying at 65000 feet would be much good at ASW work. Certainly it will be able to spot anything on the surface ... but it won't be fitted with the range of ASW sensors and weapons that the P-8 will carry.

I can only assume that the ASW role of the P-3C will be dispersed on a number of other platforms, such as the additional submarines and the frigates that will replace the Anzacs.

Of course that means that if we don't get all the new subs that have been promised then they might have to rethink the size of the P-8 fleet.

 

[ADMk2]

Actually a lot of countries seem to have cut back their Maritime Aircraft fleets. The USN are replacing around 200 Orions with 117 P-8s. Most European nations are cutting back on aircraft. In fact the British have paid off their Nimrods without any replacement.

In Australia's case I am not sure what the thinking is. I find it hard to believe that a Global Hawk flying at 65000 feet would be much good at ASW work. Certainly it will be able to spot anything on the surface ... but it won't be fitted with the range of ASW sensors and weapons that the P-8 will carry.

I can only assume that the ASW role of the P-3C will be dispersed on a number of other platforms, such as the additional submarines and the frigates that will replace the Anzacs.

Of course that means that if we don't get all the new subs that have been promised then they might have to rethink the size of the P-8 fleet.

I guess it relates to the taskings that the current AP-3C undertake. The majority of work undertake undoubtedly is surface surveillance, a task which the GH would seem to excel at. I imagine it's radar would be well suited to scanning for shallow subs as well.

The "response" and deeper ASW aspects would be handled by the manned fleet I suppose.

My concern is the concurrent operations aspect we'll be losing. I'm sure our surveillance capabilities will be enormously improved, however sooner or later you have to respond and 8 airframes have to cover an awful lot of territory, no matter how much faster they might do so...

 

[aussienscale]

I guess it relates to the taskings that the current AP-3C undertake. The majority of work undertake undoubtedly is surface surveillance, a task which the GH would seem to excel at. I imagine it's radar would be well suited to scanning for shallow subs as well.

The "response" and deeper ASW aspects would be handled by the manned fleet I suppose.

My concern is the concurrent operations aspect we'll be losing. I'm sure our surveillance capabilities will be enormously improved, however sooner or later you have to respond and 8 airframes have to cover an awful lot of territory, no matter how much faster they might do so...

Agree, and that was my concern regarding critical mass for operations, for the P8's what would be the availability ratio ? I would be guessing out of 8 airframes you would have at any given time 3-4 available ?

 

[hairyman]

Anybody aware of the anticipated cost of the P8A, and of the Global Hawk?
This is probably the reason the numbers are down.
I read somewhere the P8A was over $600mil each. Could this be right?

 

[ADMk2]

Agree, and that was my concern regarding critical mass for operations, for the P8's what would be the availability ratio ? I would be guessing out of 8 airframes you would have at any given time 3-4 available ?

Well the 6 strong C-17A fleet will allow us to maintain 4 ready aircraft at any one time (not counting accidents, mishaps and the like) so I suspect 8 brand new P-8A's on the reliable 737 based platform would allows us 5-6 aircraft available at any one time. That however is with a brand new fleet. Such availability will of course decline over time.

Ideally IMHO with the amount of ocean we have to cover I can't see how less than 9-10 operationally available aircraft are going to suffice...

 

[ADMk2]

Anybody aware of the anticipated cost of the P8A, and of the Global Hawk?
This is probably the reason the numbers are down.
I read somewhere the P8A was over $600mil each. Could this be right?

Low rate initial production prices maybe. That cost will come down over time and I've no doubt that cost included development, support, infrastructure and so on.

The basic flyaway is undoubtedly much lower, especially when we buy them, which seems likely to be in the "sweet spot" of full rate production...

 

[colay]

Anybody aware of the anticipated cost of the P8A, and of the Global Hawk?
This is probably the reason the numbers are down.
I read somewhere the P8A was over $600mil each. Could this be right?

Google is your friend.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...ct-for-second-batch-of-p-8a-poseidons-364437/
Boeing gets contract for second batch of P-8A Poseidons

The US Navy has awarded Boeing a contract to build a second lot of P-8A Poseidons, but nearly two years of development still remain for the anti-submarine warfare and patrol aircraft.

The $1.38 billion contract for seven aircraft in the second lot of low-rate initial production (LRIP-2) - awarded on 3 November - indicates that cost of the P-8A has fallen significantly.

Including a $137 million contract for advanced procurement awarded last year, the average cost of the P-8A is about $202 million in LRIP-2. The cost in LRIP-1 for six aircraft was $273 million on average.

 

[ASSAIL]

I can only assume that the ASW role of the P-3C will be dispersed on a number of other platforms, such as the additional submarines and the frigates that will replace the Anzacs.

There is only one constant in ASW, you can't find submarines with surface ships.

If they are stalking you for a kill. you might get lucky, very lucky.

Given the growth of sub capability in the Asian region we need all of the ASW air and subsurface assets we can get.

 

[ADMk2]

There is only one constant in ASW, you can't find submarines with surface ships.

If they are stalking you for a kill. you might get lucky, very lucky.

Given the growth of sub capability in the Asian region we need all of the ASW air and subsurface assets we can get.

I agree, in fact I'd argue that we need a dozen P-8A's and another dozen MH-60R's on top of our current order, given the increasing threat and the fact that the OCV will someday need a helicopter (if we go with a helicopter capable design as intended).

The LHD's could well do with a couple of MH-60R's each and RAN would probably be better off operating only one helo type over the longer term anyway.

The MH-60R can have it's anti-sub gear stripped and be used for utility missions when required, but the overall anti-sub capability along with the GH and P-8A's, new subs etc would be massively boosted.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

In Australia's case I am not sure what the thinking is. I find it hard to believe that a Global Hawk flying at 65000 feet would be much good at ASW work. Certainly it will be able to spot anything on the surface ... but it won't be fitted with the range of ASW sensors and weapons that the P-8 will carry.

I can only assume that the ASW role of the P-3C will be dispersed on a number of other platforms, such as the additional submarines and the frigates that will replace the Anzacs.

If you’re not sure what the thinking is why go make something up rather than try to find out?

The Global Hawk, P-8 mix is part of a plan by the USN to **IMPROVE** sea control and ASW capability by doing things in a different way. Rather than replace P-3 with more P-3s a new system is being adopted to replace the old P-3 system.

There are loads of open source information on the internet explaining BAMS (GH) and MMA (P-8) and how it will work. In short the BAMS element will provide a persistent eye over the ocean and then cue MMAs to go and explore in more detail suspect areas. The BAMS will have enough sensors combined with its persistent view over time to pick up the kind of clues as to the presence of a submarine in an area that passing P-3s or P-8s won’t. The P-8 will have the kind of capability a P-3 has but be better suited to high speed transit to suspect search areas and not *waste* a lot of its time in broad area searching.

 

[Massive]

... the BAMS element will provide a persistent eye over the ocean and then cue MMAs to go and explore in more detail suspect areas. ... The P-8 will have the kind of capability a P-3 has but be better suited to high speed transit to suspect search areas.

Thanks for this Abe.

This seems to be a sensible development but i have always wondered at the numbers, just from a slightly different angle.

The requisite numbers of BAMS required to provide persistent coverage would appear to be pretty fixed. The number of MMA would be more flexible depending on how many contacts you expect and need to investigate further.

I would be interested to hear what people think about the planned MMA purchase in this context?

Regards,

Massive

 

[Volkodav]

The P-8 just seems to be such a flexible platform that eight, while likely sufficient for the anticipated MPA missions, will never be enough when we look at the larger ISR picture. I am no expert but its just the way it seems. Perhaps we will see further P-8 buys down the track of latter block or even special mission versions.

 

[fretburner]

The requisite numbers of BAMS required to provide persistent coverage would appear to be pretty fixed. The number of MMA would be more flexible depending on how many contacts you expect and need to investigate further.

Has Australia committed already to the BAMS?

Also, what other aircraft does Australia have to prosecute, say, suspected subs apart from the P-8As and MH-60s? Especially AC which can drop Torpedoes if needed?

 

[ADMk2]

Has Australia committed already to the BAMS?

Also, what other aircraft does Australia have to prosecute, say, suspected subs apart from the P-8As and MH-60s? Especially AC which can drop Torpedoes if needed?

None apart from the current AP-3C's and the S-70B's, both of which are to be replaced by the P-8A and the MH-60R...

 

[aussienscale]

None apart from the current AP-3C's and the S-70B's, both of which are to be replaced by the P-8A and the MH-60R...

Not sure if this is still the current position, but come across this the other night while doing a little research

Australian Government, Department of Defence - The Hon. Joel Fitzgibbon MP Media Release

Cheers

 

[hairyman]

From Boeing.
LONG BEACH, Calif., Nov. 1, 2012 -- Boeing [NYSE: BA] delivered the sixth Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) C-17 Globemaster III today at the company's final assembly facility in Long Beach. The airlifter will be assigned to No. 36 Squadron at RAAF Base Amberley near Brisbane, where it will help meet increased demand for airlift to support military, humanitarian and peacekeeping operations.

 

[ADMk2]

From Boeing.
LONG BEACH, Calif., Nov. 1, 2012 -- Boeing [NYSE: BA] delivered the sixth Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) C-17 Globemaster III today at the company's final assembly facility in Long Beach. The airlifter will be assigned to No. 36 Squadron at RAAF Base Amberley near Brisbane, where it will help meet increased demand for airlift to support military, humanitarian and peacekeeping operations.

Nice. So with the early retirement of the C-130H, can anyone see us pursuing C-17 number 7 or 8 in the new White Paper, maybe as the "surprise"?

(I think this Government will want a "surprise" capability announcement for the WP, given the public bagging over their sustained under-investment in capital acquisitions).

Hurricane Sandy would have provided a timely remembrance of the need for ADF to have a strong humanitarian response capability after all...

 

[aussienscale]

Nice. So with the early retirement of the C-130H, can anyone see us pursuing C-17 number 7 or 8 in the new White Paper, maybe as the "surprise"?

(I think this Government will want a "surprise capability announcement for the WP, given the public bagging over their sustained under-investment in capital acquisitions).

Hurricane Sandy would have provided a timely remembrance of the need for ADF to have a strong humanitarian response capability after all...

I think another 2 are a very good chance, but we had better order them pretty quick, US orders have finished and the production line is winding down and slatted to close down next year some time ?

 

[the road runner]

India have 10 on order and the first forward,centre and aft fuselages, and the wing assembly were joined on July 31st 2012.

C-17s for India

I assume the line would be closing very soon if new orders are not made.

 

[ADMk2]

I think another 2 are a very good chance, but we had better order them pretty quick, US orders have finished and the production line is winding down and slatted to close down next year some time ?

I imagine 2013, will still see orders available. The WP is "meant" to be released early to mid 2013, though we've seen delays before.

I just see the C-17 ticking every box for this Government.

ADF needs more airlift. Check.

Government wants to be seen to be investing in future capability for ADF. Check.

This Government doesn't really want to engage in acquisitions of capability that don't tow the corporate line, ie: "humanitarian assistance" as opposed (as much as possible) to combat capability. Check.

Government doesn't want to spend "too" much. Check. ($500-$600m is "chump" change overall and will be stripped from other ADF projects anyway).

Government wants some nice easy acquisitions, to balance the difficult ones so they can point to statistics to prove we are managing Defence "well". Check.

Win, win all-round.

(Except to the ADF who need capability in other areas, that Government WON'T fund...)