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

[ngatimozart]

The media brief on the Advanced Super Hornet is uploaded to the web here:

http://www.aereo.jor.br/wp-content/uploads//2013/08/Advanced-Super-Hornet-Media-Brief.pdf

Definitely some interesting stuff there.

Yes Abe there does. It appears the the conformal fuel tanks and conformal weapons pod could be retrofitted to existing F18Fs & Growlers. If the RAAF wanted the cockpits upgraded that could be done in a MLU.

Looking at that presentation I was wondering how munted (shagged) the current RAAF F/A18 Hornets would be by the time they are retired. I was thining maybe some of the better ones could find their way across the ditch and us kiwis do an upgrade on them getting is back into the fast air game. Maybe a glass cockpit etc. I don't know what the costings would be compared to buying new. If presented to the NZG in such a way that they thought they were getting a real good deal and that Australia REALLY REQUIRED NZ to get back into fast jets then it might make an impact. Just an idea.

 

[ADMk2]

Take it with that comment we can expect another round of super hornets under the christmas tree this year if the coalition get in?

Yes Abe there does. It appears the the conformal fuel tanks and conformal weapons pod could be retrofitted to existing F18Fs & Growlers. If the RAAF wanted the cockpits upgraded that could be done in a MLU.

Looking at that presentation I was wondering how munted (shagged) the current RAAF F/A18 Hornets would be by the time they are retired. I was thining maybe some of the better ones could find their way across the ditch and us kiwis do an upgrade on them getting is back into the fast air game. Maybe a glass cockpit etc. I don't know what the costings would be compared to buying new. If presented to the NZG in such a way that they thought they were getting a real good deal and that Australia REALLY REQUIRED NZ to get back into fast jets then it might make an impact. Just an idea.

RAAF's legacy Hornets are pretty shagged. I imagine NZ 'could' keep them going if they put enough resources into them, but I honestly think they'd be better off starting with something newer IF they were going to get back into the fast jet business, like a T/A-50 or something.

 

[rjtjrt]

Yes Abe there does. It appears the the conformal fuel tanks and conformal weapons pod could be retrofitted to existing F18Fs & Growlers. If the RAAF wanted the cockpits upgraded that could be done in a MLU.

Looking at that presentation I was wondering how munted (shagged) the current RAAF F/A18 Hornets would be by the time they are retired. I was thining maybe some of the better ones could find their way across the ditch and us kiwis do an upgrade on them getting is back into the fast air game. Maybe a glass cockpit etc. I don't know what the costings would be compared to buying new. If presented to the NZG in such a way that they thought they were getting a real good deal and that Australia REALLY REQUIRED NZ to get back into fast jets then it might make an impact. Just an idea.

The possible option of the South African Gripen???? coming up on the market.
I can't see NZ getting back into this fast jet role in the foreseeable future, but the Gripen would be a fir, and just maybe there will be a window of oportunity wirh the South African Air Force aircraft at some time.

 

[40 deg south]

The possible option of the South African Grippens ???? coming up on the market.
I can't see NZ getting back into this fast jet role in the foreseeable future, but Grippens would be a fir, and just maybe there will be a window of oportunity wirh the South African Air Force aircraft at some time.

I hate to be discouraging, but there is NIL chance of NZ getting back into fast jets unless a serious shooting war breaks out in Asia.

Our Navy tanker urgently needs replacing, the C130 fleet has been (expensively) SLEPped but will need replacement by 2020 and the Orions will last only a couple of years longer. And by then, the Anzac frigates will need replacement too. Oh, and tenders to replace the CT-4 training aircraft are currently being evaluated.

The government will struggle mightily to replace all this worn-out kit with equivalent or better, let alone an expensive new jet fleet. Even buying second-hand, the sustainment costs couldn't be met unless there was a huge increase in defence spending.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I hate to be discouraging, but there is NIL chance of NZ getting back into fast jets unless a serious shooting war breaks out in Asia.

Agree or at least some kind of serious security flare up. Also if RNZAF was to get back in fast jets step one wouldn't be acquiring end of life RAAF Hornets but a lead in fighter trainer in the Hawk class. More important than actual kit is people who can operate that kit when standing up a new force element. Fighters could eventually be acquired from the US under the same sort of friendly conditions that Australia could provide but with more remaining life of type.

 

[John Newman]

The media brief on the Advanced Super Hornet is uploaded to the web here:

http://www.aereo.jor.br/wp-content/uploads//2013/08/Advanced-Super-Hornet-Media-Brief.pdf

Definitely some interesting stuff there.

Yes it certainly does look interesting, but I suppose if Boeing doesn't receive any new orders for more Super Hornets, these upgrades probably won't see the light of day with new build aircraft.

What it will come down to is, if the USN adopts some or all of these enhancements, and if it does that, it opens up the opportunity for the RAAF to follow suit by keeping to the same configuration as the USN aircraft, especially now that they will be operated by the RAAF for 20 years (at least) rather than the original 10 years.

The one particular aspect that got most of my attention was how these upgrades would apply to the Growler, looking at the details and photo on page 13 of the media brief.

By equipping the Growler with Conformal Fuel Tanks (removing the external underwing fuel tanks), Next Gen Jammers and the photo also shows the Growler with the new centre line enclosed weapons pod, the upgrade would result in:

* Same mission performance with 3000 lbs less fuel
* 600+ lbs less landing weight
* Reduces fuel required for bring-back by 400lbs
* Un-obscured field-of-regard for Jamming

Would it be reasonable to suggest that Growlers will stay in service with both the USN and the RAAF well beyond the eventual withdrawal from service of the E & F models?

If so, maybe it might be worth including the 'plumbing' for the Conformal Fuel Tanks on the 12 new build Growlers that Boeing will produce for the RAAF in the next few years (similar idea to the 12 'pre-wired' RAAF Super Hornets) rather than opening up the airframe at a later date, future proofing perhaps?

 

[gf0012-aust]

I can't see the Growlers being kept on - RAAF definitely wants an all JSF fleet and Growler isn't seen as a benefit once all JSF are in service

At this stage, there is no intention on keeping them beyond current reqs

 

[John Newman]

I can't see the Growlers being kept on - RAAF definitely wants an all JSF fleet and Growler isn't seen as a benefit once all JSF are in service

At this stage, there is no intention on keeping them beyond current reqs

I agree completely with you that the RAAF does want an all F-35 fleet, but the roadmap that has been set for then by the current Government is that a decision on a 4th Sqn won't be made for a long time, according to the White Paper, that's closer to 2030.

We are yet to see the Libs plan, (probably won't see it until they produce their new White Paper), if they continue on the same path or not, there will no doubt be a few changes of Government between now and then anyway.

As to the Growler's AEA capability and if the NGJ pods are in RAAF service at some point in their life, is the AEA capability of the Growler something that the RAAF would want to carry over to the F-35? Or is it a redundant capability regardless?

 

[Bonza]

I can't see the Growlers being kept on - RAAF definitely wants an all JSF fleet and Growler isn't seen as a benefit once all JSF are in service

At this stage, there is no intention on keeping them beyond current reqs

Can you share any info re the Growler's capabilities being seen as unnecessary once we go all F-35? I would have thought the platform would still provide quite a bit of utility due to the two crew/processing grunt, potential synergies with UAS, etc... no worries if you can't elaborate, I'd just like to understand the relationships a little better.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Can you share any info re the Growler's capabilities being seen as unnecessary once we go all F-35? I would have thought the platform would still provide quite a bit of utility due to the two crew/processing grunt, potential synergies with UAS, etc... no worries if you can't elaborate, I'd just like to understand the relationships a little better.

it basically boils down to likely packages against likely threat in the combat scenarios that get run

Growler is of value now in a number of areas, training, systems constructs, package management, interaction with wedgetail etc.... its advantages diminish as JSF comes on line

personally I'm a fan of Growler, but unless the world dramatically turns on local force development policy, then they will be orphans.

Libs are also pro JSF, so can't see much change occurring in their view. They would have probably sided with a strong element RAAF who regard Growler and the 2nd Shornet buy as political panicking and a woftam. Some are quite toey that the panic purchase has screwed overall force development. They're regarded as unnecessary buys caused by politicians being spooked - and by politicians ignoring advice etc.....


usual caveats apply to above

 

[jack412]

Why telling fibs to parliament isn't a good idea
http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary...eannualreport_2011_2012/submissions/sub 7.pdf

 

[ADMk2]

Why telling fibs to parliament isn't a good idea
http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary...eannualreport_2011_2012/submissions/sub 7.pdf

LoL. They are still telling fibs. China hasn't yet signed for or bought ANY SU-35's as yet, let alone 24 as of May this year.

 

[StobieWan]

That's not really a fib tho, isn't it more of a lie?

 

[ADMk2]

That's not really a fib tho, isn't it more of a lie?

Well whatever you call it, it is a verifiably un-true statement and as this allegation is so patently false, it hardly engenders a great deal of confidence in the rest of their nonsense...

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Well whatever you call it, it is a verifiably un-true statement and as this allegation is so patently false, it hardly engenders a great deal of confidence in the rest of their nonsense...

That letter to the Parliamentary committee is certainly an illuminating piece on the going ons inside the anti F-35 ‘movement’. Especially Dr Stillion’s decision to ask APA and REPSIM to never talk to him again…

But I don’t understand what the point of their complaint is? If Andrew Davies says that REPSIM are full of crap it’s not the Parliament’s business. Even if the matter of dispute is over what they said to Parliament. If you want to defend your reputation then you either do so through the court of public opinion or via defamation action. You don’t go to the Parliamentary sub-committee on defence and ask them to sort it out. If Parliamentary committees spent any time on assessing or upholding the reputations of anyone who petitions them they would never do anything else.

PS the 80th F-35 just flew recently. How is that ‘death spiral’ going…

 

[ADMk2]

That letter to the Parliamentary committee is certainly an illuminating piece on the going ons inside the anti F-35 ‘movement’. Especially Dr Stillion’s decision to ask APA and REPSIM to never talk to him again…

But I don’t understand what the point of their complaint is? If Andrew Davies says that REPSIM are full of crap it’s not the Parliament’s business. Even if the matter of dispute is over what they said to Parliament. If you want to defend your reputation then you either do so through the court of public opinion or via defamation action. You don’t go to the Parliamentary sub-committee on defence and ask them to sort it out. If Parliamentary committees spent any time on assessing or upholding the reputations of anyone who petitions them they would never do anything else.

PS the 80th F-35 just flew recently. How is that ‘death spiral’ going…

That Parliamentary Committee is legally obliged to listen to them...

It's the only kind of hearing they can get these days short of suing someone and as these blokes have neither a leg to stand on fact-wise (even on a balance of probability level of proof) nor the coin to take on those they claim to be impugning their reputation, they have very little prospect of successful legal action against anyone for their imagined slights.

What I thought was illuminating was the admission that the infamous 'RAND Study' was not at all conducted by RAND but rather just rubbish cooked up by Goon and Kopp.

Stillion was fired (and rightly so) because he took their crap on face-value.

What I find so amusing is this is undeniable proof of what they consider 'peer review' to be, ie: they approve their own 'work' and call this 'peer review'...

 

[ngatimozart]

That's not really a fib tho, isn't it more of a lie?

Isn't telling fibs,lies or various untruths to a Parliamentry committee similar or the same as lying in court? Because it is misleading parliament. If not it should be along with a suitable punishment. In the case of the Goon show and Repsim maybe ye ancient punishment of hanging, drawing & quartering. Nah that'd be an environmental disaster - chuck em in the stocks instead.

 

[gf0012-aust]

That Parliamentary Committee is legally obliged to listen to them...

Yep, its the same as a Ministerial. The Minister is required to review unless a delegate
does it for him/her at his direction....

They can from that point on consider all the prev interactions and make a determination as to whether its frivolous or malicious in intent.

There's a point where any Minister or Delegate of the Minister will exercise the option of withdrawing etc..... and that would/could take into consideration any previous history of engagement etc...

I know of one who is regarded as a serial pest - and all of their own volition, which makes it easier for the Minister, Secretary or Delegate to decline etc.....

They only tolerate so much

 

[jack412]

I find that their insistence of associating RAND to their little delusion strange.
Rand has said they had nothing to do with it
It seems it was stillion repsim and apa who used RAND's logo on their power point

Stillion liked to use RAND's llogo for his own opinions, as per his letter to parliament in Jan 2008 where he used the logo whilst saying it had nothing to do with RAND
http://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary...enceannualreport_2006_2007/subs/exhibit2b.pdf

It also must be pointed out that it seems repsim/apa have changed their slide 5, sub 7 that they say were from 'air combat, past present future' quite funny really as there was no 24 vs 24 of su-35 and f-22 or f-35 in the original power point..it was 72 su-35 vs 6 f-22

as per original Stillion power point slide 42-46 if anyone hasn't seen it
http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&r...bDZWTL6WmCwiAuTR8wWhd-Q&bvm=bv.53217764,d.aGc
No SAMs or ships [they said there were]
Three Flanker regiments, 72 x SU-35 begin attack on 6 x F-22 defending Taiwan
The max number of continuous on station F-22 from Anderson air base = 6 x F-22 with total 48 missiles.
American missiles have Pk of 1.0 = 100% kill rate.
Chinese missiles have Pk of 0.0 against the F-22 = infinite zero kills of the f-22
F-22 kill 48 x SU-35 and have no missiles left.
Remaining SU-35 go on to kill air-refueling tankers and AEW&CS with missiles allowed to kill these planes
With the refueling tankers killed, there is insufficient fuel for the F-22 to return to Anderson base 1565 nm away and divert to another air field.

How much crap are they going to take from these guys?

PS, I saw that Jensen wanted to be science minister, now that would be fun

also here is the RAND report on Pacific Vision, page 14, well worth a read
http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&r...AFzIaXJWIau3AmMb1wGcJCw&bvm=bv.53217764,d.aGc
In August 2008, leaders from Pacific Air Forces (PACAF) and analysts
from RAND Project AIR FORCE (PAF) and other institutions gathered
at Hickam Air Force Base in Hawaii for Pacific Vision, a war game designed
to identify the capabilities PACAF will need to prevail against potential
threats in the Asia-Pacific region through 2016.

 

[ngatimozart]

In democratic societies everyone is entitled to freedom of speech and to espouse their viewpoint no matter how ill-informed or uneducated that maybe. Sometimes evolution slips up and lets those of lesser cerebal quantity and quality survive. That is an abberation that evolution should rectify. So much for Darwinian evolutionary theory. Look at it this way, whilst they are busy picking on the pollies they are leaving the rest of us alone. We already have a good idea of what the pollies think of them so it is reasonably safe. One day they will out last their welcome in pollie circles.