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 Navor86
So can you explain this rule of thumb please
Please keep in mind that I have ...
Please keep in mind that I have no experience in planning missions or anything like that. Having said that, here is my understanding of what is required.
1. Location of target
2. Defences associated with target
3. Ordnance needed for strike
4. Number of desired strikes in a given period of time
5. Aircraft available
With the above information, then estimates can be made on what is needed to successfully deliver the "package" to the target. With greater range, more fuel is required to reach the target and to allow for loitering and manuvering. Depending on the aircraft available and ordnance required, as well as target location, it is possible that a single sortie could require multiple refuelings. And the estimates would need to be made for any escorting aircraft (SEAD, etc) which might in turn require refueling. Once the number and location of refuelings is determined, then the estimates can be made on who many tankers are needed. It is possible given a number of variables, that a single tanker could be used repeatedly on the same mission, but it would need to meet a series of criteria (like range, speed, fuel available, safety, etc).
In short, estimates can be made, but it is very much dependent on the mission, given the number of different variables involved. To my way of thinking, more information would be needed (to isolate variables) to give any clearer an estimate of what would be required, Perhaps someone with experience actually planning such a mission could shed more light on what is involved.
-Cheers
________________
"I'm doing the same thing I do every night, Pinky..." comment from one lab mouse to another.
Here are the variables to use in the rule of thumb formula's
C= coastline in thousands of kms that you want to patrol.
B= total yearly defence budget in billions
P= Population of country in millions
G factor = 1.5 if the liberal (pro military) government is in. 1.0 if the labour is in.
The formula is:
number of AWACS = ((C/B)*P)/6
You then multiply this by the G factor and round it up to the nearest whole number.
So in Australia that means 5 AWAC's under a labour government and 7 AWAC's under the liberals.
This rule of thumb can be used to calculate the AWAC requirement of any country and is extremely accurate. It works for all countries USA, Australia, France, Japan etc.. In the case of the US you must include the coastlines of other countries in the C variable otherwise you get the number required to only defend the US coastlines and not for overseas deployments.
The rule of thumb for fighter aircraft is classified so it can not be posted on this forum..
Last edited by rjmaz1; August 28th, 2008 at 11:44 PM.
Here are the variables to use in the rule of thumb formula's
C= coastline in thousands of kms
B= total yearly defence budget in billions
P= Population of country in millions
S= Number of states in the country
G factor = 1.5 if the liberal (pro military) government is in. 1.0 if the labour is in.
The formula is:
number of AWACS = ((C/B)*P)/S
You then multiply this by the G factor and round it up to the nearest whole number.
So in Australia that means 5 AWAC's under a labour government and 7 AWAC's under the liberals.
This rule of thumb can be used to calculate the AWAC requirement of any country and is extremely accurate. It works for all countries USA, Australia, France, Japan etc..
The rule of thumb for fighter aircraft is classified so it can not be posted on this forum..
Surely you've overlooked the 'ACF' variable required to arrive at a result? Or is that taken into account in the 'G' Factor?
Otherwise a brilliant and incisive description of the probable process.
[ACF= Alcohol Consumption Factor]
Cheers,
Mac
At the recent Brisbane Riverfire dump and burn, the F-111 had something attached to one of its pylons. Can anyone identify what it is? Here is a picture I found of what it looked like. Its' the white thing on the inner starboard pylon. http://www.ausairpower.net/A8-109-F-111C.jpg
Many thanks.
At the recent Brisbane Riverfire dump and burn, the F-111 had something attached to one of its pylons. Can anyone identify what it is? Here is a picture I found of what it looked like. Its' the white thing on the inner starboard pylon. http://www.ausairpower.net/A8-109-F-111C.jpg
Many thanks.
SUU-20 practice bomb and rocket dispenser.
________________
Lead, follow, or get out of the way!
RAAF Investigates Loss of Air Combat Maneuvering Pod from F/A-18
Posted by David Hughes at 9/4/2008 9:16 AM CDT
The Royal Australian Air Force has begun an investigation into why an Air Combat Manoeuvring Instrumentation (ACMI) Pod separated from an RAAF F/A-18 aircraft in flight on August 29, 2008. The pod came off the aircraft at approximately 10.40 am in a sparsely populated area between Merriwa and Bylong, while it was conducting air combat maneuvering.
From Aviation Week.
RAAF Investigates Loss of Air Combat Maneuvering Pod from F/A-18
Posted by David Hughes at 9/4/2008 9:16 AM CDT
The Royal Australian Air Force has begun an investigation into why an Air Combat Manoeuvring Instrumentation (ACMI) Pod separated from an RAAF F/A-18 aircraft in flight on August 29, 2008. The pod came off the aircraft at approximately 10.40 am in a sparsely populated area between Merriwa and Bylong, while it was conducting air combat maneuvering.
From Aviation Week.
It was announced on the DoD's website shortly after it happened...
Another example why we shouldn't rely on the "media" to relay things that are happening, particularly defence related because they generally don't have the FIRST clue as to what they are talking about...
AD,
Thanks for that answer, I agree with your comments re. the mass 'media'. I was actually being sarcastic towards the dailies in the post, I just wasn't pointed enough. LOL
Still, I should have checked the DOD website myself instead of relying on the e-mail list, though I did get the message the 'body in a tree' in PNG was a moss covered fallen branch. Priorities.
Cheers,
Mac
Sept 4/08: Australia has initially decide to replace 49 center barrel sections in its Hornet fleet, and has already begun the process. In parallel, however, it also ran a full scale fatigue testing program for removed center barrel sections, courtesy of Australia’s DSTO, QinetiQ-Aerostructures, and Fortburn. The Hon. Warren Snowdon MP, Australia’s Minister for Defence Science and Personnel under Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon, announced that in light of this testing:
”...the actual life of the Hornet centre barrels is 10%, or 2 years, greater than originally certified…. These findings are thanks to Australia’s internationally recognised world-leading expertise in testing and managing ageing aircraft, and is the result of decades of experience developing this capability.”
In response, Australia’s center barrel replacement program may drop from 49 aircraft to 10, a move that would save up to A$ 400 million (currently about $330 million) and leave more aircraft available for missions.
ept 4/08: It’s officially over. The contract’s cancellation is announced by Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon:
“Since contract award, Boeing Australia and its subcontractors have experienced a range of technical issues making it increasingly difficult to deliver the full scope of the contract within a timeframe acceptable to Defence. With a Defence imperative to field a TUAV capability as soon as possible, and the potential for a number of lower risk alternative systems, the DMO and Boeing Australia have agreed to terminate the contract on mutually acceptable terms…. This decisive action will enable Defence to focus on the earliest acquisition of an alternative TUAV to meet the JP129 requirement.
....The Australian Army will continue to use the Scan Eagle UAV that is currently in service in the Middle East. As part of the agreement to terminate, Boeing will refund to Defence the $6 million they have been paid to date under the contract.”
I didn't know which service had most of the UAV's under control and presumed it was the air force http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...620/#more-1620
________________
Colin McRae 1961-2007 true champion
Unofficial Royal navy cheering section
The AP-3C Orions have actually been increased to 3 aircraft (up from 2 when the battlegroup was there), along with additional crew, maintainers logisiticians etc.
Please inform us where you heard this because I can assure you it's most certainly not the case.
rolleyes:
