Royal Australian Air Force [RAAF] News, Discussions and Updates
t68
Well-Known Member
In today's daily telegraph (Syd) is a story's about the F35 that the Abbout goverment is about to give the go ahead to purchase upto 86 aircraft and stating ech should be around 90 million AUD and roll of the assembly line between 2018-2020.
A some what good analogy about the aircraft is difined by say
The F-111 was a landline telephone connected to a system made out of black plastic, the F/A-18 is a huge brick mobile phone, but the F35 is like the latest iPhone. This iPhone can drop bombs evade enemies using stealth technology ans see's the battlefield in real time, stretching out for hundreds of kilometres in any direction.
Interesting why to put I think
A some what good analogy about the aircraft is difined by say
The F-111 was a landline telephone connected to a system made out of black plastic, the F/A-18 is a huge brick mobile phone, but the F35 is like the latest iPhone. This iPhone can drop bombs evade enemies using stealth technology ans see's the battlefield in real time, stretching out for hundreds of kilometres in any direction.
Interesting why to put I think
Last edited:
King Wally
Active Member
Here's the article in full for anyone wanting a read.
It's actually a pretty objective piece, and I'd be interested to know where they got the "86" number from? It's a number I've not seen thrown around so perhaps they had a new source somewhere that dropped a reference?
Only thing that was hard to overlook was the editor went and slapped a big picture of a F-22 raptor on top of the article, seemingly unaware they got the wrong plane. Oh well cant win them all.
King Wally
Active Member
I'll quote another contributor from the F-35 thread who recently cross checked the basic per unit costs at present
Key thing to remember is that the engine will add perhaps 20 odd million to the price. The author appears to have done some research, as for how the price will look once in full rate production I'm not sure, there will be some level of basic inflation effect in 5 years time but that should be more then offset by the improved productivity of full rate production being in effect. All up I'd say the statement is fairly accurate.
No, the Defence figures have consistently been below $100m ea - even with contingency factored in
14 have already been approved for purchase...Here's the article in full for anyone wanting a read.
It's actually a pretty objective piece, and I'd be interested to know where they got the "86" number from? It's a number I've not seen thrown around so perhaps they had a new source somewhere that dropped a reference?
Only thing that was hard to overlook was the editor went and slapped a big picture of a F-22 raptor on top of the article, seemingly unaware they got the wrong plane. Oh well cant win them all.
14 and 'up to 86' meets our original 'up to' target...
Trackmaster
Member
I have to ask the question and am prepared for the comments from SA...
But why are our maritime surveillance assets based at the bottom end of the country? ...with the exception of heading south, all flights spend a considerable time over land before they get to work.
Is it "an historical fact", or is there a good reason. Back in the Neptune days, there was a squadron based in Townsville.
Bluey 006
Active Member
I was wondering that too. Might be due to the existing basing and command structure at RAAF Edinburgh.
Personally, I'd like to see an alternative more flexible package for Air 7000 over the original proposal of 8 x P-8A and 7 x MQ-4C.
My ideal Air 7000 maritime surveillance configuration is as follows:
3 x MQ-4C Triton/Global Hawk (In service by 2018) [Reduced number to allow for MQ-9 and additional P-8A].
- Based at RAAF Pearce.
5 x MQ-9 Mariner/Reaper (In service by 2016). [New acquisition to supplement MQ-4C and P-8A in both maritime and battlefield surveillance/strike roles, at a significantly lower operational cost].
- The MC-9s could be forward deployed at RAAF Townsville, RAAF Darwin (or ideally both) or alternatively at our offshore territories (Cocos (Keeling) and Christmas Island). They could even be deployed and based further afield in support of ADF global operations.
10 x P-8A Poseidon (To begin replacing P-3 Orion in 2019) [Two additional P-8A to counter reduced MQ-9 order]
–Based at RAAF Edinburgh.
This configuration results in a lower initial procurement cost and in my opinion also provides greater flexibility to the ADF, and government. Based on the limited data I could find this configuration would also result in lower long term operating costs mainly due to the O&S Avg annual cost per flying hour/aircraft. The MQ-9C has significantly lower cost per hour than the MQ-4C and the capability is not reduced that much (Important if a big part of its mission is spotting asylum seeker boats). Also, the ability of the MC-9 Mariner to carry weapons and sonobuoy, and increased numbers of P-8A both have benefits for ASW, ASuW and CAS in the littorals.
On the surface it would seem this configuration would deliver increased capability at similar costs. It gives ADF enhanced Maritime ISR, Maritime Strike and ASW capabilities with greater flexibility. It does add an additional supply chain though. This may be offset by the fact that the MQ-9 could do much of the grunt work with its lower operational costs.
Some air force commanders have indicated a preference for additional manned aircraft and reduced UAVs. But this configuration could get the best of both worlds amd deliver a layered solution (i.e: Tritons doing the long range work, P-8As doing mid-range ASW, specialist ISR and when human eyes are required then the Mariners operating closer to the coast and in the littorals or vice versa)
Thoughts and Opinions?
*Bearing in mind I only crunched basic numbers based off very limited open-source research, if someone has done in depth analysis that is unclassified, happy to hear it.
N.B: A configuration 5 x MC-9, 5 x MC-4C and 8 x P-8A might work well also.
Government has already committed to 8x P-8A with 4x additional options. These options are more than likely to be confirmed in the next White Paper / DCP.
Government has already committed to 7x MQ-4C Triton UAV's.
ADF is pushing for a permanent MALE UAV project to be included in the next White Paper / DCP and it appears likely to get up, given the observable success ADF has had with Heron UAV. This is not likely to come at the expense of either P-8A or MC-4C Triton capability.
Given Woomera's proximity as well as the Great Southern Ocean for flying UAV outside of civilian air corridors and all the issues that activity poses, RAAF Edinburgh seems an excellent home base to me, with detachments along with P-8A sent to Darwin, Pearce, Learmonth, Scherger etc as needed.
Bluey 006
Active Member
Has the government actually committed to 7 x MQ-4Cs? The statement today said they will decide on numbers in 2016
That number was given first pass approval, was supported in speeches by Defmin Johnson as recently as February 2014 and I understand was the indicative planning number used for the Letter of Request for information, we issued in 2013.
Until the decision is final, that seems to be the most accurate figure available.
I'm 99% certain the number won't be 3, for issues of supportability, the ability to surge, the ability to meet the raise, train and sustain requirement Government has for ADF and the ability to deploy simultaneous East and West Coast assets.
As with the Air Warfare Destroyer, a fleet of 3 gives you one platform available for operations on a permanent basis...
Bluey 006
Active Member
Didn't stop them with the AWDs.....UAVs are tasked differently than major surface combatants. They have different purpose and mission.
I understand that you need three to have one available principle, hence why in my suggestion there are 8 platforms available (3 x MQ-4Cs and 5 x MQ-9). This ensures you have at least three or five (in surge) UAS available at any one time. With much more flexibility.
Northrop Grumman claims that a cell of three Global Hawks - each with an endurance of 36 hours - can successively provide for 30 days continuous 24-hour surveillance of an area at least 2,000 nautical miles from its base. Northrop Grumman claims the Global Hawk BAMS offers the best value at the lowest risk.
ADM: Air 7000 - Maritime UAV options
Trackmaster
Member
If Northrop Grumman are going with a sell based on 2000 nautical miles from base...I would rather have the base in the northern part of the country.
As to earlier comments about the southern ocean offering unrestricted areas for training...it's not the training I am concerned about. It's the operational area.
Three is the bare-minimum to conduct operations, not an ideal number for sustained operations, hence why ADF is consistently moving to a minimum four to one ratio, where affordable. We've only got 3x AWD's because the budget blew out to $9b...
If the money is there for both capabilities as ADF believes it so, then the 7 / 7 mix of HALE / MALE + 12x MPA would suit me just fine.
Yes, but they base their cell on an operational fleet of three, not an entire fleet...
But it's a pointless argument. ADF believes both a HALE and MALE UAV capability is affordable and sustainable and is still pushing for 7 BAMS UAV's, 12 P-8A's and a MALE UAV capability to be included in the next White Paper and DCP.
If all is supported by Government, we'll be very well covered.
t68
Well-Known Member
Here is a small insight into P3 Orion operations in search of the missing passenger jet. Comes with video
First-hand look at hunt for the MH370
First-hand look at hunt for the MH370