Royal Australian Air Force [RAAF] News, Discussions and Updates
This is a discussion on Royal Australian Air Force [RAAF] News, Discussions and Updates within the Air Force & Aviation forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Originally Posted by Andrew McL
You sure? In white painted aircraft with no unusual antennae??? If so, I'm not sure ...
You sure? In white painted aircraft with no unusual antennae??? If so, I'm not sure that's something you should be revealing, Abe.
As AD pointed out it’s on the record that it has a surveillance capability. Since the Army unit that provided the capability were doing COMINT during the VietNam War one thing leads to another?
As to the lack of conspicuousness the US has a capability called CENTRA SPIKE on a King Air that provides a full COMINT/DF capability that is not only indistinguishable on the outside but also the inside of the aircraft! Any antennas are deployed when they are in their operational orbit at 10,000-20,000 feet where no one on the ground can see them. Further similar capabilities are available in a full kit type that can be plugged in and plugged out.
All of this is open source but the formal response from Defence on SKA surveillance capability is it exists but no comment on to its nature.
The worst was ABC who broadcast to air Peter Criss and Chris Mills playing Dungeons and Dragons or something to demonstrate air combat. They are both sitting at a table and one says 'my Hornets fired their missiles' then the other says 'my Sukhois shot down your tankers' and they roll a dice or something... and that proved the entire RAAF air power srategy was wrong.
Insert face palm here.
I don't understand how they thought they had a relevant comparison. One senario showed the F111s striking a unaware, undefended target. The other showed Hornets attacked by alert, already airborne defenders who appeared to already know the location of not only the Hornets but also their tankers, who I imagine would be holding station several hundred Ks offshore.
No mention was made of how the F111s would fare bounced by these same SU30s.
As for the disparaging comment that shornets could not be considered stealthy because they carry external ordinance, perhaps someone should tell them where the RAAF hangs the bombs on an F111.
Last edited by MickB; February 13th, 2012 at 02:34 AM.
As for the disparaging comment that shornets could not be considered stealthy because they carry external ordinance, perhaps someone should tell them where the RAAF hangs the bombs on an F111.
The F-111 actually has an internal weapons bay, as well as external hardpoints. Depending on the mission loadout, which hardpoints and/or the internal bay would be used. For example, if the F-111 was to be tasked with a maritime strike mission and carry 4x Harpoon AShM, those IIRC only fit on the wing hardpoints. OTOH if the sortie was a strike vs. ground-based targets using LGB's, then the internal weapons bay along might be used.
Even with munitions in an internal bay, the F-111 RCS would likely resemble that of a barn door, since V-G wings do not exactly lend themselves to reliable redirection of radar signals.
-Cheers
________________
"I'm doing the same thing I do every night, Pinky..." comment from one lab mouse to another.
OTOH if the sortie was a strike vs. ground-based targets using LGB's, then the internal weapons bay along might be used.
-Cheers
How often though would RAAF F-111 ops depend on ground based designation for LGBs? The Pave Tack pod used for self designation occupied the entire bay, and then some.
The F-111 actually has an internal weapons bay, as well as external hardpoints. Depending on the mission loadout, which hardpoints and/or the internal bay would be used.
But in practice the weapons bay was used by the Pave Tack targeting pod. Without the pod on at least one F-111 in a formation, the F-111 was basically a truck for dumb bombs because Pave Tack was required for LGBs.
On such a thought, did any of the Pave Tack pods get preserved along with the aircraft? I would hope that at least one of the F-111s at Point Cook would have a pod. Perhaps they still have one or two at Amberley with their collection.
It's nothing new, America has to restart F-22 production or the world is going to end and we as Australia are bound as mates to convince America to do so...
Oh and apparently China will have 240x SU-35S's in-service by 2018.
It's nothing new, America has to restart F-22 production or the world is going to end and we as Australia are bound as mates to convince America to do so...
Oh and apparently China will have 240x SU-35S's in-service by 2018.
Interesting towards the end there !! When directly asked "What do we do now" Goon had no answer, we know what he wants to do, but maybe he is finally realising that it will not happen ?
Hi Guys, I decided to go and have a look at Air Power Australia's website just now. Hmmm they have some interesting views don't they???? If I didn't know any better I would think that the F-111 was only around 10 years old and still ready to fight with the most modern aircraft around.
Then they go on to say that our fleet should consist of the F-111 and the FA-18's yet they go on to say that the Super Hornet is a under performer? which is strange as it is a bigger more grown up and a more capable version of the hornet we have at the moment and apparently the one we should keep over the super hornet?
If anyone feels like a giggle, the data on the video and click 'show more' for some of the specs imputed to the Sim H3 MilSim - F-35A v Su-35S - YouTube
"In most simulations the F-35 is destroyed well before launching its weapons."
If anyone feels like a giggle, the data on the video and click 'show more' for some of the specs imputed to the Sim H3 MilSim - F-35A v Su-35S - YouTube
"In most simulations the F-35 is destroyed well before launching its weapons."
At least the f-35 didn't have to worry about running out of missiles in the sim, because it didn't get to fire them.
I bet they have another sim where the f-35 ran out of missiles and were 'clubbed like a baby seal'
They still haven't caught on that official Russian missile ranges are measured at an alt of ~25,000 meters and official US missiles are measured at ~11,000 meters. [~35,000ft]
That gives about a 2 times range advantage to the Russian than if they were both fired at the same alt, then they play their numbers game on top of that
At least the f-35 didn't have to worry about running out of missiles in the sim, because it didn't get to fire them.
I bet they have another sim where the f-35 ran out of missiles and were 'clubbed like a baby seal'
They still haven't caught on that official Russian missile ranges are measured at an alt of ~25,000 meters and official US missiles are measured at ~11,000 meters. [~35,000ft]
That gives about a 2 times range advantage to the Russian than if they were both fired at the same alt, then they play their numbers game on top of that
Jeez - how many aircraft other than the SR-71 could/can fly at 25000 metres?
I don't think any of the Flankers can do that - might be wrong though.
Jeez - how many aircraft other than the SR-71 could/can fly at 25000 metres?
I don't think any of the Flankers can do that - might be wrong though.
That's P suit territory so no, Flankers flown against RAAF fighters won't be flying at 75,000 feet...
And we're still waiting to hear of more orders for the SU-35 than the 48 of such aircraft Russia has ordered and of course yet to hear of any Chinese interest in this aircraft let alone orders for 240 combat coded SU-35's.
Other than those minor points, these simulations appear pretty spot on...
It's nothing new, America has to restart F-22 production or the world is going to end and we as Australia are bound as mates to convince America to do so...
Oh and apparently China will have 240x SU-35S's in-service by 2018.
Interesting reading. I particularly like the 2nd to last sentence in the first comment from the Chair.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Senator Furner
The giving of false or misleading evidence is a serious matter and may be regarded as contempt of parliament.
Other areas I found 'interesting' was that APA & Co. was that they assumed for the sim that the PRC would have developed a JORN-like HF radar, but with a range of 4,000+ n miles. While I suppose this is possible, my impression was that Australia is/was one of the world leaders in that type of radar system, having spent something like three decades developing and deploying JORN. Something which they apparently neglected to get into is that while such radar systems can potentially negate LO features due to the radio frequencies used and vector for the incoming and returning signal, such systems are only useful as an early detection/tripwire. They do not on their own provide target quality data.
That means any of the inbound PRC aircraft would need to wait until either their own radars, or if they have AEW support those radars, detect any of the opposing F/A-18 SHornets, F-35's, or F-22's.
Ignoring that sort of importance performance difference does seem to highlight how questionable some of the assumptions using in the simulation are. I rather wonder if RepSim Pty Ltd has done any simulation work at the request of the Australian and/or US Gov'ts using non-public domain information.
-Cheers
________________
"I'm doing the same thing I do every night, Pinky..." comment from one lab mouse to another.
