Royal Australian Air Force [RAAF] News, Discussions and Updates
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
The case of “B” versus “A” might depend on allied Japan, SK, and perhaps Singapore. The F-35B truly offers considerable flexibility which IMHO offsets is reduced weapons load and range thus justifying it along side the “A” fleet. This would also be applicable to the RCAF operations in the Arctic and the unlikely event pollies here would fund a couple of ramp equipped Canberra LHDs.
What F-22 / F-35 hybrid? All that is someone's wet dream, because the US is not going to restart the F-22 production line, and it has been publicly stated that the production line will not be restarted. The cost is to great. SECDEF Gates saw to that when he canned the program. The only new US fighter program publicly alluded too is the 6th gen fighter and that is only at the what if stage at the moment.
Yes the Wayne Mapp influence that in mentioning it would frighten the horses.
It is more likely ignorance. By the public due to a very unsophisticated and intellectually challenged media that fails to inform them. By a generally unsophisticated and intellectually challenged political class who worry more about their long term personal prospects politically than taking the future of the nation state seriously.
I don't think that they were even that good. I wish their was an adjective for worse than worse.
If there is even a moderately sized conflict in the Indo Pacific region over the next decade that exacerbates New Zealand's SLOC and ALOC and puts negative coercive pressure even indirectly on some of our smaller Pacific neighbours New Zealand will not have any capacity to respond. Its neutering of itself, which started with Clark in the late 1990's will be all plain to see. If there is a major conflict and NZ end up on the surviving side, I would expect that Canberra send New Zealand a huge invoice for their costs incurred in protecting us. As I have said before the $16B bill the US sent the Japanese and the $9B bill the Germans had to pay for the Gulf War is the most recent precedent. The Bush 41 administration were not mucking around. It was real politique. Again this should be bluntly expressed now - just so the public, the media and the politicians know what they are up for (so they know not to pour too much of the budget on publicly funded gender reassignment surgery and other such crap). If the NZ governments wants to be so fiscally transactional in the lens that it views everything I am sure an OZ Treasurer would enjoy pointing out how much they will understand the reason why they are getting a $50B invoice. Which is probably the amount of money that NZ has underfunded defence in the last 20 years.
New Zealand thinks it is acting with principals, a moral ideal when it comes to Defence. But the fact is that it is acting in a way that is completely counter productive to its own interests. Its retreat into its defence shell only creates a vacuum for another player to step into. 1. The PRC or 2. Australia in which the absence of a credible role by New Zealand will be obliged for its own sovereign preservation and in such a situation will have every right not to ever consult New Zealand in any form of its Pacific reset.
I would say this is already underway. It was already apparent in 2004 that the PRC was pushing into the Pacific. Within 5-10 years if NZ does not get its shit together in terms of Defence posture and capability, which lets be honest - it wont, NZ will have no influence at all in the Pacific. The only chance for liberal democracy in the region, the backyard, is for Australia to strike out on its own on its own terms, without New Zealand views considered any longer. In that 5-10 year time frame their patience will have finally run out.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
It will actually be the 4th Sqn + Trg unit, it used to be 2 Strike Sqn(F-111,FA-18F) and 3 FGA Sqn(FA-18AB) now it will be 1 Strike Sqn(FA-18F-?) 1 EA Sqn(EA-18G) and 3 FGA Sqn(FA-18A/B-F-35A).
Arguably the best post I have read in my short time on this quality site. I would like to offer an opinion. Australia and New Zealand are unique in our region and our social, cultural and political commonalities are the basis of a strong relationship. The most I see is a pressure for New Zealand to increase its defence budget going forward. The Chinese and Japanese money has been flowing into the Pacific States for years. Perhaps its the boiling frog effect but no-one is panicking. If China were to obtain a permanent naval port in one of these States, then that may well be the catalyst the NZ Government needs to refocus its attention. Sadly, history is full of examples of military renewal only after the enemy is at the door.
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Folly of a single engine fighter? Seriously?
It's hardly two days since the aircraft was lost, and hardly a day since they've found some pieces of the aircraft (and sadly not the pilot so far), from what I understand the water is at least 1500m or so deep at that point, and the major airframe components have not been recovered as yet (if ever?).
So how can you start suggesting that it is an engine failure? A single engine failure? Do you know something that the rest of the world doesn't?
Engine technology and reliability has moved on significantly, and certainly since the early sixties when the RAAF had single engine Mirage IIIs.
It may well be an engine problem, but it is way way too early to speculate as to why this aircraft was lost, and certainly way way to early to blame an engine failure of a single engine airframe.
Lets not forget that the last combat aircraft the RAAF lost (in January 2018), was a brand new 'twin' engine EA-18G Growler with about 200hrs on the clock.
The Starboard engine shit itself big time, which not only damaged the airframe, but also caused significant damage to the Port engine too. If that Growler had made it into the air, or the incident had happened in the air, then a second engine wasn't going to save the airframe.
Anyway, way too early to speculate one way or the other.
Cheers,
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Given the sensitive technology contained in the F-35 I believe the USN will conduct a massive recovery effort for this crashed F-35 regardless of whether or not the cause can be determined from the wreckage.
Or even temporary use of a runway within the South Western Pacific for something like the EA-03. We are that vulnerable.
Consider the Vanuatu airport situation. Proximity to NZ and Australia is well within the operational range of a EA-03 HALE. Likewise, in a few short years there will be the capability of EW/ISR remotely piloted aircraft off a PRC CV-19.
I expect this is still some time off being operational on the current aircraft but the possibilities are of course interesting
Air Force to test fire fighter jet-configured laser weapons pod from the ground
Air Force moving forward on project to increase the power of laser weapons for tactical aircraft
A thirty kilowatt scalable laser seems similar in capability to the laser that was fitted on the U.S Ponce in 2014 for use against drones and small boats
Air Force to test fire fighter jet-configured laser weapons pod from the ground
Air Force moving forward on project to increase the power of laser weapons for tactical aircraft
A thirty kilowatt scalable laser seems similar in capability to the laser that was fitted on the U.S Ponce in 2014 for use against drones and small boats
Ah, like the F-16, Mirage 2000, Gripen, etc.
Calling it folly is a bit OTT, I think. Single-engine fighters have been very successful, & with the reliability of current engines, safe.
What has this to do with the RAAF?
Yes, but that's a huge what if, hence of no actual relevance. Something like that is better posted in the appropriate thread, in this case the USAF thread. So when posting items like this, just think about the actual relevance of the post to the subject matter of that thread, that's all.
Jack Wyatt
Member
It has been hugely successful period for the RAAF with the hard work commenced by CAS Brown and continued by CAS Davies. Two officers with great vision who have transformed the RAAF. The new CAS has a difficult act to follow,
New RAAF boss wants to embrace corporate sector
New RAAF boss wants to embrace corporate sector
Statistically speaking you are more likely to lose a twin engine fighter to a catastrophic engine failure than a single engine type. This is because by doubling the number of engines you are increasing the likelihood of failure on a particular airframe and if that failure is severe enough to take out vital systems (including quite possibly a nearby second engine) then your are just as screwed as if you lost your single engine.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
The other factor besides failure rate is cost, the cost of the additional engine and just as significant, the maintenance on two engines. This is a large part of the reason why the worldwide F-16 fleet is probably as large as the combined F-15, F-18, and F-18(SH). Might even be the case if the retired Tomcats were added in as well.
“Statistically” what is the occurrence of engine failures in the commercial jet industry? Tens of thousands of aircraft engines in almost continual use around the world and the number of failure is? Almost negligible I would opine.
This furphy about single v multiple is an unfortunate carrryover from the days of yore when multiple engines for over water flights was mandated, even twins were disallowed!
And yes I agree, when turbines let go they explode and destroy most things around them including the adjacent engine.
Bold claim - not withstanding the reliability of modern engines - is there any evidence online I could peruse that highlights this?
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
It is just statistics. If you have an engine with a known failure rate and 100 fighters are built with a single engine and 100 fighters are built with 2 engines of the same type, the twin engine fleet has a greater probably of having an engine failure because of the larger engine population. As has been pointed out by others, an engine failure in a twin engine fighter will often damage the other engine due to the close proximity of the engines to each other. It is also true a single engine jet that experiences engine failure always crashes whereas a twin engine design with a single engine failure might survive.