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

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Saw the RAAF's 6th (or perhaps 7th?) KC-30A at Qantas Defence Services in Brisbane this morning.

Looked like it was doing engine runs and powering up systems so it can't be too far away from flight trials, if it isn't already doing them...
 

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
Saw the RAAF's 6th (or perhaps 7th?) KC-30A at Qantas Defence Services in Brisbane this morning.

Looked like it was doing engine runs and powering up systems so it can't be too far away from flight trials, if it isn't already doing them...
Could that be one of the 5 current active ones just getting some routine maintenance?? If recollection serves me A39-006 and A39-007 (RAAF serial numbers for the 6th and 7th KC-30A's) are being converted in Spain and not Australia. Couldn't see them flying the thing's 16,000km give or take to start the flight trials.
 

DropBear

New Member
Afternoon folks. New poster, long time lurker.

I have a couple of questions regarding the purchase of the PC-21 for RAAF. Putting aside the frames allocated for training, will this smaller number (I think it's 49 PC-21 to replace 67 PC-9) allow for continued operation by the Roulettes?
Obviously the RAAF deems the number adequate (along with modern simulators) to cater for their training needs, but will these numbers also allow for say half a dozen to be taken out of the training pool for the Roulettes as well as the existing four used for FAC/JTAC training? I know my question seems simplistic, however, taking ten away from daily training allows for approximately 39 frames for day to day training requirements.
 

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Could that be one of the 5 current active ones just getting some routine maintenance?? If recollection serves me A39-006 and A39-007 (RAAF serial numbers for the 6th and 7th KC-30A's) are being converted in Spain and not Australia. Couldn't see them flying the thing's 16,000km give or take to start the flight trials.
Could well have been, didn't get a chance to see the tail number.

Been an interesting day from the KC-30 in Brisbane, Singaporean F-15's, C-130's and Super Pumas in Rockhampton to Chinooks and Hornets buzzing Townsville at present...

:)
 

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Afternoon folks. New poster, long time lurker.

I have a couple of questions regarding the purchase of the PC-21 for RAAF. Putting aside the frames allocated for training, will this smaller number (I think it's 49 PC-21 to replace 67 PC-9) allow for continued operation by the Roulettes?
Obviously the RAAF deems the number adequate (along with modern simulators) to cater for their training needs, but will these numbers also allow for say half a dozen to be taken out of the training pool for the Roulettes as well as the existing four used for FAC/JTAC training? I know my question seems simplistic, however, taking ten away from daily training allows for approximately 39 frames for day to day training requirements.
No word on the Roulettes but 4 Squadron will get PC-21 to replace it's existing PC-9 for peacetime FAC / JTAC duties and ARDU will be getting some as well...

https://www.airforce.gov.au/News/Fi...erland/?RAAF-5At9oaNgsBryqE0eCfV7zAIc0/NXWD1U
 

John Newman

The Bunker Group
The long-rumoured VIP conversion of one of the (newish) A-330 refuellers appears to have been given the go-ahead.
Only one airframe, though, which will make for some interesting priority challenges.
Come fly with me - Australia gets its Air Force One
Regardless of if it's one or two VIP fitouts for the two extra KC-30A's, I don't really care, as long as the primary capabilities are maintained.

Be interesting to see if the VIP configuration is a 'permanent' fixture or 'modular', one that can be rolled in and out of the airframe as necessary.

Again, don't really care as long as the core MRTT capability is maintained.

Still it will be interesting when the BBJ's and the Challenger 604's are retired what will come in their place? Maybe a larger fleet of G550's perhaps??
 

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
Regardless of if it's one or two VIP fitouts for the two extra KC-30A's, I don't really care, as long as the primary capabilities are maintained.

Be interesting to see if the VIP configuration is a 'permanent' fixture or 'modular', one that can be rolled in and out of the airframe as necessary.

Again, don't really care as long as the core MRTT capability is maintained.

Still it will be interesting when the BBJ's and the Challenger 604's are retired what will come in their place? Maybe a larger fleet of G550's perhaps??
Retaining core role is key so fully agree with you, In regards to the BBJ's and 604's not sure a G550 would be seen as a comparable replacement to the BBJ however that being said with the extra capacity gained from the KC-30's a BBJ replacement may not be viewed as strictly necessary. If a replacement is seen as necessary then I'd imagine something of similar size with ideally something from the 737 family as may be able to tap into same support facilities relating to the E-7's.For the 604's the G550's would be an ideal replacement as they are relatively comparable and would give us a larger fleet possibly lower the per unit operational cost.

------

Edit: I just read up on the BBJ's and yea maybe a couple extra G550's in there place would be better, Bloody useless those things... Why did we even bother with them?
 

John Newman

The Bunker Group
Retaining core role is key so fully agree with you, In regards to the BBJ's and 604's not sure a G550 would be seen as a comparable replacement to the BBJ however that being said with the extra capacity gained from the KC-30's a BBJ replacement may not be viewed as strictly necessary. If a replacement is seen as necessary then I'd imagine something of similar size with ideally something from the 737 family as may be able to tap into same support facilities relating to the E-7's.For the 604's the G550's would be an ideal replacement as they are relatively comparable and would give us a larger fleet possibly lower the per unit operational cost.

------

Edit: I just read up on the BBJ's and yea maybe a couple extra G550's in there place would be better, Bloody useless those things... Why did we even bother with them?
It all comes down to if we still have a two tier VIP fleet, as is the case now with the BBJ's and the 604's, or if we move to a three tier VIP fleet, one of the KC-30A's fitted for VIP work (when applicable), plus replacements for the BBJ's and the 604's.

If it's two tier, no BBJ replacement, then a larger fleet of G550's might be appropriate, if it's three, then maybe it's one KC-30A with it's VIP fittout, one or two 737 based airframes for the BBJ's and G550's for the 604's.

Anyway, just speculation of course!!
 

Bluey 006

Active Member
Yes we have noticed that and two of us have been discussing amongst ourselves. Be interesting to see what the Triton cost will finally come down to.
I've often wondered if, for nations with smaller budgets like NZ if the P-8A could be paired with the marine version of the MQ-9 Reaper to keep overall system costs down?

Some integration costs obviously but the unit price is much lower than the Triton

Also adds a strike capability to the UAS/RPA component
 

hauritz

Well-Known Member
A Senate committee looking into the Joint Strike Fighter program has recommended Defence develop a plan B in case the F-35A aircraft are not ready on time.

Joint Strike Fighter Senate committee recommends Defence Department establish plan B - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

In short, the Plan B would need to be ready by 2019 just in case the F-35 was not ready.

If you read the senate paper there is lots of lunacy from Peter Goon and others who still think that aerial dogfighting is still a "thing"

http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/Committees/fadt_ctte/JointStrikeFighter/report.pdf?la=en
 

Boagrius

Well-Known Member
A Senate committee looking into the Joint Strike Fighter program has recommended Defence develop a plan B in case the F-35A aircraft are not ready on time.

Joint Strike Fighter Senate committee recommends Defence Department establish plan B - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

In short, the Plan B would need to be ready by 2019 just in case the F-35 was not ready.

If you read the senate paper there is lots of lunacy from Peter Goon and others who still think that aerial dogfighting is still a "thing"

http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/Committees/fadt_ctte/JointStrikeFighter/report.pdf?la=en
So from my reading, apparently APA submitted something they called a "Zero-One Comparative Technique (ZOCT) Table" which was roundly dismissed by Defence et al. In short it is a single table (!?) in which the F35 is compared to J20/PAKFA et al. in a binary (and in many cases flat out incorrect) fashion on the basis of utterly arbitrary, contrived performance metrics. Literally the kind of "analysis" I would expect from one of my teenage students over a game of Battlefield 3...

I am genuinely baffled at where APA get the audacity to submit something so obviously and woefully incomplete, unscientific, error ridden and warped by agenda/fantasy (they're STILL pushing for RAAF Raptors!?). In all seriousness, how do these guys so much as get an audience at a forum like this?? :hitwall :confused:
 

John Newman

The Bunker Group
A Senate committee looking into the Joint Strike Fighter program has recommended Defence develop a plan B in case the F-35A aircraft are not ready on time.

Joint Strike Fighter Senate committee recommends Defence Department establish plan B - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

In short, the Plan B would need to be ready by 2019 just in case the F-35 was not ready.

If you read the senate paper there is lots of lunacy from Peter Goon and others who still think that aerial dogfighting is still a "thing"

http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/Committees/fadt_ctte/JointStrikeFighter/report.pdf?la=en
As I've always understood it, a Senate Committee, and it's report, has no 'power' to impose its findings/results on the Government, eg, the elected Government of the day with the majority in the House of Reps.

The problem with most Senate Committee's and their reports, is that they can be very 'politically' motivated, based on the make up of the Committee, and often there is never a majority decision with dissenting views, again based on the political make up of the Senate Committee.

Anyway, regardless of the report, I'm sure that the Government (and Defence) does have a plan B if everything went pear shaped with the F-35 program, which I seriously doubt will happen.

Senate Committee's? Usually a lot of hot air!!!
 

Boagrius

Well-Known Member
As I've always understood it, a Senate Committee,and it's report, has no 'power' to impose its findings/results on the Government, eg, the elected Government of the day with the majority in the House of Reps.

The problem with most Senate Committee's and their reports, is that they can be very 'politically' motivated, based on the make up of the Committee, and often there is never a majority decision with dissenting views, again based on the political make up of the Senate Committee.

Anyway, regardless of the report, I'm sure that the Government (and Defence) does have a plan B if everything went pear shaped with the F-35 program, which I seriously doubt will happen.

Senate Committee's? Usually a lot of hot air!!!
It sounds like it. I just can't fathom why you would bother airing (in, nevertheless, a Government setting) the opinion of people who literally have no more to contribute to the discussion than any other raving lunatic you could randomly pick from the street. Same level of access to the pertinent information and, (apparently) same level of insight! It would be like asking my Grandad for his analysis of the geopolitical situation in the Middle East. He'd be happy to talk your ear off about it but is he really the best person to ask!?
 

John Newman

The Bunker Group
Speaking of G550's has there been any update regarding the 'special' ones RAAF was going to get - announced back in January?
Last I looked it wasn't obvious how many were to be acquired, although I vaguely remember something about a possible increase in numbers.
Special missions Gulfstream 550s for the RAAF? | Australian Aviation
Best thing to do is to make yourself familiar with the 2016 DWP and IIP, you can download both PDF's at the link below:

Home : White Paper : Department of Defence

The relevant paragraph from the Integrated Investment Plan is:

Long-range electronic warfare support
1.20 From the early 2020s, Defence will acquire up to five long-range electronic warfare support aircraft based on the Gulfstream G550 airframe with additional and modified systems. This capability will substantially enhance electronic warfare support to naval, air and land forces for operations in electromagnetic environments manipulated by hostile forces, with the operating cost, range and endurance benefits of a commercial airframe. The aircraft will be acquired in two tranches and incrementally upgraded to maintain commonality with the United States-developed systems for long-term supportability and to maintain interoperability.
 

John Newman

The Bunker Group
It sounds like it. I just can't fathom why you would bother airing (in, nevertheless, a Government setting) the opinion of people who literally have no more to contribute to the discussion than any other raving lunatic you could randomly pick from the street. Same level of access to the pertinent information and, (apparently) same level of insight! It would be like asking my Grandad for his analysis of the geopolitical situation in the Middle East. He'd be happy to talk your ear off about it but is he really the best person to ask!?
Couple of things, the old saying "opinions are like a---holes, everyone has one!" And the world is full of a---holes too!

And when you say "airing in .... a Government setting", what you really should be saying is in a "Parliamentary setting", two totally different animals.

And talking of the Senate (and I don't believe I'm saying this) and agreeing with Keating too for the one time in my life when he said of the Senate:

"Those unrepresentative swill"

Pretty well says it all (and again it pains me greatly to ever ever agree with anything that Keating said!!)
 

rossfrb_1

Member
Best thing to do is to make yourself familiar with the 2016 DWP and IIP, you can download both PDF's at the link below:

Home : White Paper : Department of Defence

The relevant paragraph from the Integrated Investment Plan is:

Long-range electronic warfare support
1.20 From the early 2020s, Defence will acquire up to five long-range electronic warfare support aircraft based on the Gulfstream G550 airframe with additional and modified systems. This capability will substantially enhance electronic warfare support to naval, air and land forces for operations in electromagnetic environments manipulated by hostile forces, with the operating cost, range and endurance benefits of a commercial airframe. The aircraft will be acquired in two tranches and incrementally upgraded to maintain commonality with the United States-developed systems for long-term supportability and to maintain interoperability.
Thanks for that
The link I posted stated
“L-3 Communications Mission Integration, Greenville, Texas, has been awarded a $93,632,287 firm fixed-price undefinitised contract action task order (1648) for Australia Government G550 aircraft procurement and maintenance,” the short contract award notice reads.

“Work will be performed at Greenville, Texas, and is expected to be complete by November 30, 2017."

I took that to mean the first tranche will be completed by November 30, 2017 ready for handover to RAAF.

You link suggests early 2020s - maybe that's for the second tranche?
rb
 

rossfrb_1

Member
Couple of things, the old saying "opinions are like a---holes, everyone has one!" And the world is full of a---holes too!

And when you say "airing in .... a Government setting", what you really should be saying is in a "Parliamentary setting", two totally different animals.

And talking of the Senate (and I don't believe I'm saying this) and agreeing with Keating too for the one time in my life when he said of the Senate:

"Those unrepresentative swill"

Pretty well says it all (and again it pains me greatly to ever ever agree with anything that Keating said!!)
Sorry mods - off topic I know - Fridayitis.
Keating for all his faults had a certain linguistic flair....
Top Paul Keating quotes | SBS News.

I don't know which is my favourite..

rb
 

John Newman

The Bunker Group
Thanks for that
The link I posted stated
“L-3 Communications Mission Integration, Greenville, Texas, has been awarded a $93,632,287 firm fixed-price undefinitised contract action task order (1648) for Australia Government G550 aircraft procurement and maintenance,” the short contract award notice reads.

“Work will be performed at Greenville, Texas, and is expected to be complete by November 30, 2017."

I took that to mean the first tranche will be completed by November 30, 2017 ready for handover to RAAF.

You link suggests early 2020s - maybe that's for the second tranche?
rb
The thing with any new capability (and especially one like this), is that just because an 'airframe' is to be completed by a certain date for 'handover' by the supplier doesn't necessarily mean that the capability will be available for service from that date.

I would imagine (and I don't have any inside info, and if I did I wouldn't be saying it here), is that there will no doubt be a period of testing and trials that will take time to complete.

And at a certain point the RAAF is likely to announce an IOC date and eventually a FOC date.

If the first airframe is to be delivered by end of 2017, then the 'early 2020s' mentioned in the IIP is probably not unreasonable.
 
Top