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

[colay]

Nope, they have a different fitout

OK, need to read up on the Oz variant..thanks.

 

[gf0012-aust]

OK, need to read up on the Oz variant..thanks.

been a while since I last attended a review, but IIRC the nominal Oz P8 was 95-98% fitout identical to USN

the IAF P8's are not.

 

[hairyman]

I take it then gf that our aircraft will be dearer than the Indian version?

 

[gf0012-aust]

I take it then gf that our aircraft will be dearer than the Indian version?

how long is a piece of string?

couple of variables in the Oz derivs.

the integration cost of blending in the extra local comms suites
the fact that Oz is paying money into helping develop elements - whereas the Indians are nominally buying an outright FMS solution - eg we are a paying developer and involved with all aspects whereas the Indians are just buying as a pure enduser.

 

[RobWilliams]

In terms of price, i'd imagine it'd look like USN < RAAF < IN.

EDIT: Didn't now about Aus bringing up cash for P-8 development, what'd be the implications? Although dev costs are being paid, presumably this results in a simpler transition from a USN P-8 to a RAAF P-8 vis-a-vis systems integration?

 

[gf0012-aust]

In terms of price, i'd imagine it'd look like USN < RAAF < IN.

EDIT: Didn't now about Aus bringing up cash for P-8 development, what'd be the implications? Although dev costs are being paid, presumably this results in a simpler transition from a USN P-8 to a RAAF P-8 vis-a-vis systems integration?

Its more about being involved in the decision making stages and early involvement with dev changes, plus doctrine devs etc....

RAAF has a very close relationship with USN, and they've gone over and above to assist in a number of areas.

Getting Shornets and Growlers was due to the efforts of USN more than anyone else
Ditto with P8's, BAMs and a few other C4ISR issues

 

[colay]

From what I've read, the P-8i is configured with MAD capability and a rear radar differentiating it from the P-8A. It also has a unique data link to integrate with India's various system platforms.

 

[gf0012-aust]

From what I've read, the P-8i is configured with MAD capability and a rear radar differentiating it from the P-8A. It also has a unique data link to integrate with India's various system platforms.

don't know why they would bother with a MAD boom as current tech can do it without a tell tale stinger in the tail - its older tech they're installing

 

[ngatimozart]

don't know why they would bother with a MAD boom as current tech can do it without a tell tale stinger in the tail - its older tech they're installing

Well at least they got the P8I without too many dramas compared to some of their other ongoing programs.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Well at least they got the P8I without too many dramas compared to some of their other ongoing programs.

The Indians have been talking to the US about getting their gear for more than 5 years now - so the US has been keen to make it as least complicated as poss.

At one stage they were even speaking about nuke sub tech and I know of a few US companies who were (and are) still in discussions.

They're basically fed up with how the russian support has panned out on a few platforms so wanted to spread and mitigate the risk a bit

They were dead keen on getting "Soldier 21" type solutions in place and considered US/NATO/allies/Israel to be about 10 years ahead of the Russians.

 

[colay]

don't know why they would bother with a MAD boom as current tech can do it without a tell tale stinger in the tail - its older tech they're installing

I was intrigued enough to do more research and found that both P-8A and P-8i feature the CAE Advanced Integrated MAD but, as you point out, the former does not have a boom... either they have found a way to build it into the fuselage or could the sensor be on a deployed via cable and deployed as warranted?

 

[gf0012-aust]

I was intrigued enough to do more research and found that both P-8A and P-8i feature the CAE Advanced Integrated MAD but, as you point out, the former does not have a boom... either they have found a way to build it into the fuselage or could the sensor be on a deployed via cable and deployed as warranted?

opsec issue.

you no longer need a boom though, so I guess they are adding because they are utilising existing tech (poss trying to get some value out of sea dragon)

 

[rand0m]

Regarding the RAAF and the F-35, in 2008 former Defence Minister Brendan Nelson stated that;

It's the five percent of this aircraft's capability that is classified to which I have had privileged access and, that's the five percent that really counts. And that's why this is the correct aircraft for us.

Five years down the truck, does the public now know what the 5% was that he was talking about? is it DIRCM? is it DAS?

source;Dogfight

 

[aussienscale]

Regarding the RAAF and the F-35, in 2008 former Defence Minister Brendan Nelson stated that;



Five years down the truck, does the public now know what the 5% was that he was talking about? is it DIRCM? is it DAS?

source;Dogfight

There is information about this platform that will never make it to the public domain, even basic information is filtered and vetted prior to public release, so although you have plenty of information out there on the JSF, and most other systems, they more often than not don't reflect the full capability/ability of the platform/equipment in question

Cheers

 

[ngatimozart]

Alenia Aermacchi: An Innovative Fire-Fighting System Approved for the C-27J Spartan
(Source: Alenia Aermacchi; issued Dec. 6, 2013)

TURIN, Italy --- One of the Romanian Air Force’s C-27Js will be the first aircraft in Europe to use an innovative firefighting system. In the several past weeks, Alenia Aermacchi conducted intense operating and training tests on the aircraft, which included the new fire-fighting system onboard.

Alenia Aermacchi recently completed an experimental campaign in a Romanian mountain range with a C-27J that operates with the Fortele Aeriene Române —the Romanian Air Force. The objective of the campaign was to test the innovative firefighting system called Caylym Guardian. The system allows C-27Js to drop up to six large cardboard containers on bushfires; each container has a capacity of 1000 liters water or extinguishing liquid.

The system allows for a quick, accurate and innovative way to fight bushfires. Using the C27J’s system of in-flight drop, the Guardian guarantees extreme precision of the drop and creates a retardant liquid cloud well focused on the target. Containers are biodegradable but they can also be recovered by ground firefighters.

Containers feature standard dimensions type A22 which can be installed on aircraft of C-130 and C-27J’s class without any peculiar equipment or modification and can be launched at higher altitudes (1.500 feet) than traditional firefighting aircraft, thus significantly increasing mission safety and allowing night operations.

The tests, performed both on ground and in flight, have proved successful and have thus confirmed the great operating flexibility of the C-27J, whose wider fuselage section and flight characteristics allow it to manage loads and perform missions that other aircraft of its same class cannot.

-ends-
Alenia Aermacchi: An Innovative Fire-Fighting System Approved for the C-27J Spartan

I see Alenia have come up with a fire fighting capability for the C27J Spartan. It looks like it could be quite good and I believe would be an excellent capability for Australia. I note that it can work on C130s as well.

 

[MickB]

Having the RAAF perform the firefighting role should greatly benifit both the RAAF and Australia as a whole. The skills required for percision water dropping would be similar to that of percision dropping of SOF troops and supplies.
Perhaps the money currently used to hire water bombers could be put to increasing RAAF aircraft numbers and capabilites.

 

[rand0m]

Would I be looking too far into to say that RAAF have been putting off the Global/Triton purchase because they've secretly had plans to purchase the RQ-180 instead? Perhaps I've discovered something....

Back to reality - whilst we don't know enough about it yet, what are the chances of the RAAF looking at the RQ-180 over the Global Hawk family?

 

[gf0012-aust]

Would I be looking too far into to say that RAAF have been putting off the Global/Triton purchase because they've secretly had plans to purchase the RQ-180 instead? Perhaps I've discovered something....

Back to reality - whilst we don't know enough about it yet, what are the chances of the RAAF looking at the RQ-180 over the Global Hawk family?

Nope, the BAMs solution collapsed due to differences in what Coastwatch options were preferred for UAS and what RAAF wanted for a broader role


Govt didn't want multiple large UAS.

 

[t68]

Nope, the BAMs solution collapsed due to differences in what Coastwatch options were preferred for UAS and what RAAF wanted for a broader role


Govt didn't want multiple large UAS.

I knew that they were considering more P8A over the UAV but did not know the project totally collapsed, any idea on numbers of P8A they have in mind?

 

[gf0012-aust]

I knew that they were considering more P8A over the UAV but did not know the project totally collapsed, any idea on numbers of P8A they have in mind?

need to correct myself on prev. The BAMs solution has fluctauted from being a Coastwatch to RAN requirement. That's then changed from ocean surveillance to broader ISR solution

BPC then dropped their UAS solution as it was not seen as cost effective to having 2 different major UAS assets. ie Mariner as opposed to GH despite the fact that the 2 platforms have 2 very different mission characteristics and flight profiles.

They could have had Mariner 7 years ago and it would not have compromised RANs req

politics 101