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

[ADMk2]

Excuse me but can someone explain to me why the opposition doesn't have the right to know about a $133m Defence purchase?

'Out of camera' on a highly classified program, in general they do. They have been told just as the rest of Australia has.

If they can't follow that we maintain significant ISR/EW capability on a platform that is just about to go out of service and is in critical need of replacement, well, they should get across their brief a bit (lot) better...

The Shadow Defmin has an ADF liaison officer for a reason...

 

[hairyman]

After two years of Captains Choices where his own party were not privy to what he was doing, Turnbull promised openness in future. Not a good start is it?

 

[Volkodav]

After two years of Captains Choices where his own party were not privy to what he was doing, Turnbull promised openness in future. Not a good start is it?

I don't know, remember who the shadow minister is, could just be he hasn't gotten to the memo yet, misunderstood it when he was advised, or just plain forgot to pass it on up the chain.

 

[StingrayOZ]

After two years of Captains Choices where his own party were not privy to what he was doing, Turnbull promised openness in future. Not a good start is it?

Openness to his own party and relevant government agencies. Not to the opposition on defence matters. If fact I would almost go with labor is so confused they don't know what is happening, if they really wanted to know they could have asked and they would have got the information. There is no statement that they requested information and they didn't get it. As they didn't request it or seem interested, the government isn't going to spoon feed the opposition every possible decision and acquisition.

Unlike Abbotts gaffs, I would be pretty sure the relevant ADF staff and the defence minister would know about this, the PM hasn't just gone off rouge and ordered a few things he likes the sound of.

Opposition are grasping as straws with this.

 

[t68]

Openness to his own party and relevant government agencies. Not to the opposition on defence matters. If fact I would almost go with labor is so confused they don't know what is happening, if they really wanted to know they could have asked and they would have got the information. There is no statement that they requested information and they didn't get it. As they didn't request it or seem interested, the government isn't going to spoon feed the opposition every possible decision and acquisition.

Unlike Abbotts gaffs, I would be pretty sure the relevant ADF staff and the defence minister would know about this, the PM hasn't just gone off rouge and ordered a few things he likes the sound of.

Opposition are grasping as straws with this.

that's my take as well, trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. its spin trying to show that Turnbull is not open when compared to Abbott

 

[StingrayOZ]

that's my take as well, trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. its spin trying to show that Turnbull is not open when compared to Abbott

Exactly.

With Abbott, no one knew what was going on. There were press conferences where the def min seemed to be contradicted by the PM (sub selection). Xenaphon/media/labor/ASC/bidders/even liberals were not privi to any information (like how the selection process works, is there a process, who knows about it). It was scary how bad it had become.

I don't think this is going to get any traction and just continues to make labor look clueless and seem to be quite happy to draw attention to that fact. They are the opposition, they are not in government. They don't seem to have any particular issue with the capability, or the selection, or the process, or the money. Just that they weren't (or cant find if they) specifically brief before any announcement. This isn't a $50 billion dollar project, this is a fairly routine, predictable and regular procurement.

I've heard (hearsay) that there has been information flowing regarding the whitepaper etc and that they will be briefed before the white paper release. That's the sort of openness and transparency that is required and would be expected, something that affects the entire national security of the nation for more than one election term. Pretty hard to criticise that though, which is why labor is being very quiet on that front.

 

[ADMk2]

After two years of Captains Choices where his own party were not privy to what he was doing, Turnbull promised openness in future. Not a good start is it?

We all need to take a bit of a breath and realise what it is we are talking about here.

This capability is one of the most classified the ADF has. To the best of my knowledge and recollection ADF has NEVER publicly admitted it even operates an (E) P-3C capability, nor any of the 'special' Hercules that have a far more extensive antenna 'farm' than the usual RAAF Hercs... Why would the replacement be any different?

If it wasn't legislatievly required by the US, I'm sure that we wouldn't have even heard we'd purchased these G550 airframes. I'm absolutely certain we haven't been told what the actual budget for this project is...

There are public and classified White Papers for good reasons people...

 

[t68]

We all need to take a bit of a breath and realise what it is we are talking about here.

I think the majority on here are not to worried about the capability more annoyed about the political point scoring, people are tired about political spin which has always been there. But with all the infighting from both sides people want the government to just get on with the job as save the one One-upmanship :ar15

This capability is one of the most classified the ADF has. To the best of my knowledge and recollection ADF has NEVER publicly admitted it even , nor any of the 'special' Hercules that have a far more extensive antenna 'farm' than the usual RAAF Hercs... Why would the replacement be any different?

well you got me on that one something new to me

Edit
a quick search turned up Project Peacemate,

"A current phase of Project Peacemate involves installing a limited signals interception capability on RAAF Lockheed Martin C-130H Hercules transports. Four aircraft have been modified in parallel with an upgrade of electronic warfare self-protection (EWSP) suites by Tenix Defence Systems. The fourth aircraft was returned to operational service in the past two months, with the last eight aircraft expected to have similar modifications later this year, again under the cover of an EWSP upgrade"

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/spies-over-the-pacific-65592/

 

[ADMk2]

I think the majority on here are not to worried about the capability more annoyed about the political point scoring, people are tired about political spin which has always been there. But with all the infighting from both sides people want the government to just get on with the job as save the one One-upmanship :ar15

Which is fine, except people seem to me to be suggesting that the Government is being particularly devious or underhanded in this instance, when in reality what this 'instance' is, is a classified program. It is classified for a very good series of reasons and it should not be discussed publicly.

well you got me on that one something new to me

Edit
a quick search turned up Project Peacemate,

"A current phase of Project Peacemate involves installing a limited signals interception capability on RAAF Lockheed Martin C-130H Hercules transports. Four aircraft have been modified in parallel with an upgrade of electronic warfare self-protection (EWSP) suites by Tenix Defence Systems. The fourth aircraft was returned to operational service in the past two months, with the last eight aircraft expected to have similar modifications later this year, again under the cover of an EWSP upgrade"

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/spies-over-the-pacific-65592/

Not sure it was quite as 'limited' as made out...

 

[hairyman]

The G550 looks a very nice and capable aircraft, and appears to me to be a good size for our PM's use. The Aussie PM does not require a plane anywhere near the size of Airforce One, surely. So maybe we should order some more.

 

[John Newman]

The G550 looks a very nice and capable aircraft, and appears to me to be a good size for our PM's use. The Aussie PM does not require a plane anywhere near the size of Airforce One, surely. So maybe we should order some more.

Since when has anyone ever suggested that the PM should have an 'Air Force One' size aircraft??

No doubt a G550 would appear to be a suitably sized candidate for when the three Challenger 604's are eventually replaced, but that doesn't address the need of larger longer ranging (and specifically larger passenger capacity) for when the BBJ's are eventually replaced.

To me an appropriate replacement for the BBJ's would be one or two A330-200's, which would see a lot of commonality with the KC-30A fleet.

It was also reported at one stage that the two extra KC-30A's (rebuilds from ex Qantas A330-200's) would see at least one fitted with a VIP passenger fit out.

Regardless of if that goes ahead or not (the VIP fit out), I still think 1 or 2 standard A330's is the way to go for the larger aircraft in the VIP fleet.

 

[t68]

Since when has anyone ever suggested that the PM should have an 'Air Force One' size aircraft??

No doubt a G550 would appear to be a suitably sized candidate for when the three Challenger 604's are eventually replaced, but that doesn't address the need of larger longer ranging (and specifically larger passenger capacity) for when the BBJ's are eventually replaced.

To me an appropriate replacement for the BBJ's would be one or two A330-200's, which would see a lot of commonality with the KC-30A fleet.

It was also reported at one stage that the two extra KC-30A's (rebuilds from ex Qantas A330-200's) would see at least one fitted with a VIP passenger fit out.

Regardless of if that goes ahead or not (the VIP fit out), I still think 1 or 2 standard A330's is the way to go for the larger aircraft in the VIP fleet.

And it will stop the media from whining about how done they are when covering ministerial trip overseas

 

[Richo99]

It was also reported at one stage that the two extra KC-30A's (rebuilds from ex Qantas A330-200's) would see at least one fitted with a VIP passenger fit out.

Regardless of if that goes ahead or not (the VIP fit out), I still think 1 or 2 standard A330's is the way to go for the larger aircraft in the VIP fleet.

A report in the January issue of the Australian Defence Magazine, page 12, suggests that the likelihood of the VIP interiors has significantly increased, with official talks between Airbus and the Aus government...

 

[hairyman]

Since when has anyone ever suggested that the PM should have an 'Air Force One' size aircraft??

It was also reported at one stage that the two extra KC-30A's (rebuilds from ex Qantas A330-200's) would see at least one fitted with a VIP passenger fit out.

You have answered that yourself.

 

[Raven22]

Since when has anyone ever suggested that the PM should have an 'Air Force One' size aircraft??

It was also reported at one stage that the two extra KC-30A's (rebuilds from ex Qantas A330-200's) would see at least one fitted with a VIP passenger fit out.

You have answered that yourself.

What provides better value for money, standalone VIP aircraft that do nothing but fly politicians around, or dual use tankers that are used as VIP taxis most of the time and tankers in times of emergency?

 

[rand0m]

Interested to know what peoples thoughts are if in w hypothetical situation Australia decided to purchase the advanced Shortnet over the F-35 and in addition could purchase an additional set of airframes (say 50% more).

Ie; capability of 92 F-35 versus 138 Advanced Shortnet.

 

[John Newman]

Since when has anyone ever suggested that the PM should have an 'Air Force One' size aircraft??

It was also reported at one stage that the two extra KC-30A's (rebuilds from ex Qantas A330-200's) would see at least one fitted with a VIP passenger fit out.

You have answered that yourself.

I've answered it myself?? Seriously?

I think we are talking apples and oranges here, I don't equate an A330 to an 'Air Force One size aircraft', eg a Boeing 747, they are two totally different aircraft.

But hey, if you want to believe that, go for your life, no problem.

 

[John Newman]

What provides better value for money, standalone VIP aircraft that do nothing but fly politicians around, or dual use tankers that are used as VIP taxis most of the time and tankers in times of emergency?

I don't think anyone would disagree, I certainly don't disagree that a fully kitted out KC-30A is going to be much more useful that a standard A330-200, but I think there are two totally different questions here.

And it comes down to the ownership status of the VIP fleet, as currently is the case with all the airframes operated by No 34 Squadron, they are leased and not owned by the Commonwealth.

If the next group of airframes (large and small) operated as VIP aircraft are leased airframes, then I wouldn't imagine that we would see one or two fully kitted out KC-30A's (with VIP interiors), being leased by the Government, just can't see that happening.

If on the other hand the Government invests the dollars in owning the replacement airframes for the BBJ's, then yes lets hope they are fully fitted KC-30A's (with VIP interiors), but if they are going to be leased airframes, then one or two commercial standard A330-200 would at least see a reasonable amount of commonality with the KC-30A's.

Anyway, when the new DWP is handed down soon, hopefully that question is answered.

 

[Raven22]

Interested to know what peoples thoughts are if in w hypothetical situation Australia decided to purchase the advanced Shortnet over the F-35 and in addition could purchase an additional set of airframes (say 50% more).

Ie; capability of 92 F-35 versus 138 Advanced Shortnet.

Where do we get the money to operate an extra 50-odd fast jets?

Any theoretical savings in up front costs (if any) would very, very quickly by eaten up by support costs.

 

[John Newman]

Interested to know what peoples thoughts are if in w hypothetical situation Australia decided to purchase the advanced Shortnet over the F-35 and in addition could purchase an additional set of airframes (say 50% more).

Ie; capability of 92 F-35 versus 138 Advanced Shortnet.

For a start I don't see that ever happening, the F-35A acquisition program for the RAAF is way too far down the track to ever imagine that the Government would do a 'U turn' and look at an alternative, why would it? If anything the F-35 program appears to be going along relatively smoothly these days.

A couple of points.

The so called 'Advanced Super Hornet' is just a concept, does not actually exist. Sure Boeing has produced a 'concept' demonstrator, but from what I understand, whilst it might have been an aerodynamic representation of what an ASH might look like, things like the conformal tanks and the weapons pod were not actually real production items, and that of course doesn't include all the avionic and engine upgrades either.

Any nation that puts in an order for the ASH is going to be slugged with all the development costs of turning the 'concept' into reality, and then of course you would potentially end up with an 'orphan' sub-fleet of airframes.

As I've always understood it, the RAAF is going to be in 'lock step' with the USN when it comes to the configuration of the Super Hornet, what they do, we do, makes a ton of sense from a supportability point of view to say the least.

The only way I could ever image the ASH becoming a reality is if the USN decides that 'all' of it Super Hornets are to be upgraded to the standard that Boeing has proposed, and seriously, I can't see that happening.

That's not to say that some 'components' of the proposed ASH might filter through to the USN's fleet of Super Hornets, such as conformal tanks, especially for the Growlers, but again, unless the USN adopts such modifications, then I just can't see that the RAAF would go out on a limb and create it's own small 'sub-class' of Super Hornets.

The other point to be made about your suggestion of '138' ASH, where does all the extra ground and aircrews come from? Where are theses extra airframes going to be based?

And most importantly, how much is it going to cost to provide all that extra manpower and basing?


No, let's just stick with the initial 72 F-35A's and hopefully eventually approx. 100 F-35A's!!!