RAAF force enhancements

[Aussie Digger]

The RAAF is to be further enhanced following Budget announcements today from the Australian Government. here's the announcement:

The Government has approved three new major projects that will give the Royal Australian Air Force the edge in air combat operations.

Senator Hill said the Government had decided to invest $326 million to buy an additional two Airborne Early Warning and Control aircraft – just days before the first of Australia’s fleet undertakes its initial test flight.

"The RAAF will now be equipped with a fleet of six Wedgetail aircraft, instead of four, almost doubling the Australian Defence Force’s air and maritime surveillance capability," Senator Hill said.

"The investment is about 10 per cent of the original contract price for a 50 per cent increase in capability.

"Increasing the size of our order to six aircraft also means that four of the Wedgetail aircraft will now be fitted-out in Australia, creating around 170 new jobs in Brisbane. Australian industry can expect to undertake more than $80 million of work on the project with a further $75 million worth of associated export work for Australian industry. There will also be three technology transfer programs worth $24 million to Australia."

The first of Australia’s AEW&C Wedgetail aircraft will take to the skies in Seattle next week. The first two aircraft will be officially handed over to the RAAF in November 2006.

The second project will provide Australia’s F/A-18 Hornet fighter aircraft with the capability to conduct all-weather precision bombing operations at a cost of around $50 million.

"The RAAF’s air strike capability will be boosted through the acquisition of kits for existing bombs that will increase their accuracy and allow delivery in adverse weather conditions," Senator Hill said.

Defence will issue a restricted Request for Tender to the manufacturers of suitable weapons systems, including Enhanced Paveway II (EP2) and Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM), to determine which weapon kit best meets RAAF requirements. These weapons include GPS guidance software to ensure the highest possible accuracy with the lowest possible collateral damage.

"Recent operations in Afghanistan and Iraq have demonstrated that precision bombing from the air not only limits casualties but also provides critical support to joint operations," Senator Hill said.

The bomb improvement program will complement the Government’s future follow-on stand-off weapon program. Together the two projects will provide a cost-effective enhancement to the ADF’s air strike capability while Defence awaits the arrival of the Joint Strike Fighter. The initial integration of the bomb kits will be complete by 2008.

The third project will provide the C-130J Hercules fleet with major enhancements to their capability with the introduction of self-protection systems at cost of around $20 million.

"This project will introduce missile warning systems, countermeasure dispensing systems and ballistic protection to our transport aircraft ensuring they are better protected against surface-to-air missiles and small arms fire," Senator Hill said.

While most of the equipment will be acquired from overseas suppliers and is off-the-shelf, installation of the equipment will be undertaken in Australia. Self-protection for the full C-130J aircraft fleet will be fitted by 2005.

In addition, the Government will be considering a number of new major capital equipment projects in 2004-05 that will significantly increase the ADF’s capability for amphibious deployment, maritime surveillance, command and control, strike, trooplift, land force protection, and improved logistic and management information.

These projects will represent a major boost for Australian industry, particularly in the areas of shipbuilding, information technology and aerospace engineering.

In addition to the 6 operational AWACS aircraft the RAAF is also acquiring an additional system that will be used for training and could be installed on a 737 if required to provide additional capability. The bomb improvement program is also long overdue with the RAAF currently possessing GBU-10/12 as it's only precision air to ground munition...

[Aussie Digger]

Here's the pics of the RAAF's first Wedgetail AWACS aircraft making it's maiden flight.

http://www.defence.gov.au/media/download/2004/May/210504/DSCF0056_lo.jpg

http://www.defence.gov.au/media/download/2004/May/210504/DSCF0091_lo.jpg

http://www.defence.gov.au/media/download/2004/May/210504/DSCF0101_lo.jpg

http://www.defence.gov.au/media/download/2004/May/210504/K63037-09_lo.jpg

Video and audio Footage is also available at:

http://www.defence.gov.au/media/download/2004/May/210504.cfm

Not bad eh?

[adsH]

NOt bad at all so UK might get these too right:D since were selling these to Turkey!! :D

[mysterious]

Oh yeah! Looks cool. I think it'd be a great boost for the RAAF for sure. :smokingc:

[Revival_786]

Nice stuff :)

No doubt it will boost conventional capability :D

[Aussie Digger]

Yep these will provide a massive increase in our ability to protect our own airspace and improve our ability to consuct strike operations. I've read reports that due to the new technology radar (MESA) the RAAF's Wedgetails will be as capable as the US's latest edition E-3 Sentries. With Link 16 and all the other capabilities it will possess, things are looking very bright for the RAAF. Cheers.

[gf0012-aust]

That last shot looks like Boeings facility in Seattle. No Australian military reg numbers yet, it still using US reg numbers - although it appears just to be a mask

[Awang se]

Can it track a surface targets. Or like the ERIEYE it have to fly a figure 8 pattern in order to do so.

[gf0012-aust]

It can track land targets. As a piece of trivia, the RAAF AP-3c Orions are also able to engage land tracking of targets.

They have been used in Iraq for such work.

[Aussie Digger]

The Synthetic Aperture capability of the RAAF's AP-3C Elta radar has proven itself in Iraq in the land surveillance role and the AP-3C is now regarded as amongst the most capable platform of it's kind in the world.

[Pathfinder-X]

oh this plane. i seen this plane's ad on aviation weekly, claims to be the most advanced AWACS system in the world (my ass). :D but it does have pretty good capability though. surely these AWACS will help RAAF take abilities to the next lvl.

[gf0012-aust]

oh this plane. i seen this plane's ad on aviation weekly, claims to be the most advanced AWACS system in the world (my ass). :D but it does have pretty good capability though. surely these AWACS will help RAAF take abilities to the next lvl.

The idiotic thing about this project is that Australia designed some of the critical elements of the system and agreed that Boeing could sell future models without paying us a royalty for development.

Bloody morons in govt strike again. The aust'n taxpayer pays for R&D and Boeing gets the rewards...

[Pathfinder-X]

The idiotic thing about this project is that Australia designed some of the critical elements of the system and agreed that Boeing could sell future models without paying us a royalty for development.

Bloody morons in govt strike again. The aust'n taxpayer pays for R&D and Boeing gets the rewards...

now dat's some dump crap ur politicians pulled off rite there!!! :D2

even a moron knows to get some money from things they made, could ur government did this to please the U.S and possibly get better deals on other things???

[Aussie Digger]

Pathfinder, I have no doubt that the Wedgetail IS the most advanced AWACS in the world, as it's the newest. It's not the most capable, simply because it's designed for a particular role and level of capability (ie: particular level of capability for a particular amount of money)... It is still very capable however, and is widely regarded as being more capable than any likely opponents in the forseeable future.

[gf0012-aust]

even a moron knows to get some money from things they made, could ur government did this to please the U.S and possibly get better deals on other things???

No, the aust govt (on both sides) has decided that the R&D is beneficial to our allies and does not see these things as something that should realise financial gain.

From a commercial opportunity perspective, that sounds daft. From the politico-diplomatic perpsective, it's entirely acceptable.

[umair]

RAAF's got it made!
I really like the radome style, no pod, no rotodome but somewhere in between.Gary what's this arrangement called?

[gf0012-aust]

It's called a Multi-role Electronically Scanned Array (MESA).

The MESA is a steerable beam, L-band electronically scanned array. It's able to track airborne and surface targets at the same time.

In contemporary terms its considered superior to the E3 AWACs which uses a mechanically steered system. Digital is lighter, faster and more accurate (in this case.)

[adsH]

Digital system phased Aray based radars have the added advantage of Being light easly mounted and less power consuming i would supose it would compensate by haveing Longer range faster electronic scan.It is certainly more accurate as its not Pulse based.(I hope its the samething, the Phased Array radar and MESA) but I doubt this AWAC will simultaneously scan Ground target while Monitoring the Air space. I think RAAF will use this for Air Asset Control and and Airspace monitoring the P3C and the New UAV based Assets can do the Dirty Job of monitoring th surface. I think the Israeli Flacons have the design type to do both!! but i dout it will be chaep to keep one of those AirBorn, GF do you think the Israeli AWACS the Falcon system consumes tooo Much power it looks Huge its Phased Array Radar is HUGE and i can bet that it has side mounted P.A.R too (not too sure here), i am sure it poses the added advantage of haveing an exceptional long range with clever Israeli Electronics. BUt the Israeli AWAC is in a completely differnt League from this Australian AWAC.

[Aussie Digger]

I have read that Wedgetail will be second only to the latest model E-3 Sentry in terms of overall capability. It's radar is just as capable as the E-3 if not more so, but it does not possess the ability to control as large a battle as the E-3, through having lesser numbers of consoles and operators...

[adsH]

i think lesser does not mean less in capability what i have read about this Awac and the swedish Awacs is that they are minimizing Operation console's where they have allocated most of the Petty tasks to the computer and the rest to the Few operators who can now carry out a variety of task when they are aided by the on bord computer system they have Multiple windows like environment too shirk enlarge screens so they are in no way less in operational capacity.

[gf0012-aust]

i think lesser does not mean less in capability what i have read about this Awac and the swedish Awacs is that they are minimizing Operation console's where they have allocated most of the Petty tasks to the computer and the rest to the Few operators who can now carry out a variety of task when they are aided by the on bord computer system they have Multiple windows like environment too shirk enlarge screens so they are in no way less in operational capacity.

Smaller can mean more efficient. eg Some of the the combat room functionality in the RAN Collins Class submarine has been "picked" up by the USN and is now used in the new SeaWolf class. The revised combat room does a number of tasks with less operators.

[adsH]

Exactly Gf it huamn Nature its better to have one screen that is Big enough where you have everything where you can personilze it your own requirments where you can flick a buton and get those relevant Windows up and running, this old idea of haveing confusing multiple screen is a harder concept and requires a good concentration span and alot of training to be efficentat it. The GUI work is the work of Artists in computers Graphical user interface deigners produce Human computer Interfaces that are more efficent and less confuseing and less harder to work onn!! oh and provide the same or more Efficent use of the system. peferably with less burden on the system

[Aussie Digger]

I agree, however persons from the RAAF when talking about Wedgetail have stated that it will only be capable of controlling significantly smaller numbers of aircraft than E-3. Though at what range is obviously a closely held secret...

[Pathfinder-X]

I agree, however persons from the RAAF when talking about Wedgetail have stated that it will only be capable of controlling significantly smaller numbers of aircraft than E-3. Though at what range is obviously a closely held secret...

it wasn't designed to be more capable than the latest E-3, it's designed to fit the needs of RAAF, and it has more than enough capability to do so. the system is the newest in the world(although not most capable), and can give RAAF a great boost in combat capability.

[Aussie Digger]

I thought I'd continue this thread and continue to outline new projects and capabilities the RAAF will receive as they are announced. This relates to new simulators for Australia's F/A-18 pilots.

ADVANCED F/A-18 HORNET SIMULATORS FOR THE ROYAL AUSTRALIAN AIR FORCE

Raytheon Australia has been selected to supply three new F/A-18 Hornet flight simulators for the Royal Australian Air Force, Defence Minister Robert Hill announced today.

The $74 million contract for acquisition and support of the simulators will significantly improve pilot training in the use of the new weapons and systems being acquired for our fleet of fighter aircraft.

Two simulators and a debrief facility will be located at RAAF Base Williamtown in New South Wales, the home of the Hornet fleet, and one new Hornet simulator and debrief facility will be located at Tindal in the Northern Territory. Raytheon will also be contracted to provide full in-service support and this will create a moderate number of new jobs at both Williamtown and Tindal.

The simulators are manufactured by L3 Communications Link Simulation and Training and are based on the latest production Hornet simulators being provided to the United States Navy and Canadian Forces.

"The simulators will improve training for pilots by allowing them to conduct basic conversion training to adapt their skills from other aircraft to the Hornet through to full advanced tactical training," Senator Hill said.

"The computer simulated combat environment will provide pilots with the opportunity to practice their skills in air-to-air combat and intercepts, bombing and formation flying.

"The technology will allow individual and multiple pilot training with simulated friendly and hostile aircraft.

"The simulators will represent another key element of a modern, networked Defence Force. They can be linked so that pilots in Williamtown and Tindal will be able to engage in mock battles and other tactical training. In time they will be able to conduct combined simulated training missions with other ADF assets, such as the Airborne Early Warning and Control aircraft.

"They will then be able to replay their missions in the debrief facility so they can go over what they did right and learn from their mistakes."

Senator Hill said the new simulators would ensure that the RAAF’s combat aircrew – already its most potent asset – maintained their edge into the future.

Pilots will start training on the new simulators from mid 2006.

[gf0012-aust]

Just to give an idea of scale and distance - the distance between RAAF Williamstown and RAAF Tindal is probably in the order of 2000k's

[Aussie Digger]

I guess they'll have a broadband link between Tindal and Williamtown for the simulators then eh? I'd imagine there would be quite a bit of data to exchange...

[Aussie Digger]

Here's the actual details of the RAAF's new F/A-18 simulators.

L-3 Awarded $26.4 M for RAAF F/A-18 Training System Program


(Source: L-3 Communications; issued June 16, 2004)


NEW YORK --- L-3 Communications today announced that its Link Simulation and Training (Link) division has been awarded a $26.4 million contract by Raytheon Australia to provide training equipment for the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) F/A-18 Hornet Aircrew Training System (HACTS).

Raytheon and Link will provide the RAAF with a High Level Architecture, networked training system that will support F/A-18 pilot training. Raytheon will provide overall program management and in-service support at two RAAF bases during the life of the F/A-18 HACTS program.

Link will supply the F/A-18 HACTS program with high fidelity simulators that will support both individual and team training. This modern training system will be an evolutionary leap forward in the RAAF’s F/A-18 training realism and combat readiness.

“This important award allows Link to retain its global presence in F/A-18 simulation and continue its expansion as the leading global provider of distributed mission training systems,� said David Love, vice president of business development for Link Simulation and Training. “We look forward to delivering an advanced, networked training solution that supports the Commomwealth’s long-term Hornet training requirements.�

The HACTS will include three high fidelity, Link-built F/A-18 Tactical Operational Flight Trainers (TOFTs) that can be networked to form an interoperable, synthetic battlespace. The first F/A-18 TOFTs will be integrated with Link’s SimuSphere visual display. The scalable SimuSphere visual display will be integrated on one F/A-18 TOFT in a nine-panel, 360 field-of-view configuration. The other two F/A-18 TOFTs will be integrated with seven-panel SimuSphere displays that will provide the pilot with a 300 horizontal x 130 vertical field-of-view. Link’s SimuView(TM) personal computer image generation system will power both out-the-window imagery and cockpit sensor display systems.

The HACTS is being procured under the RAAF Hornet Upgrade Phase 2 program and is envisioned to support the entire RAAF F/A-18 training continuum. The F/A-18 TOFTs will reinforce a full range of pilot warfighting skills across both air-to-air and air-to-ground mission areas. In addition, each Link TOFT will be integrated with a Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System (JHMCS) training system. This program marks the first ever integration of a JHMCS training capability into a near-eye-relief visual system. The JHMCS, to be deployed on the RAAF’s upgraded F/A-18 fleet, gives the pilot a targeting system that can be used to control sensors and weapons through pilot visual cueing.

Australia has followed the United States and Canada in recently choosing the Link F/A-18 training system solution. This global commonality will provide a significant life cycle cost benefit to all of Link’s F/A-18 customers, while further supporting rapid development and maintenance of simulation systems common with actual aircraft configurations.

Link Simulation and Training is a systems integration organization that delivers and supports training systems and equipment designed to enhance operational proficiency. Link’s services include conducting front end analysis, simulator design and production, and field support. Link has its headquarters operation in Arlington, TX and other key bases of operation in Binghamton, NY, Orlando, FL, Broken Arrow, OK, and Phoenix, AZ.

Headquartered in New York City, L-3 Communications is a leading provider of Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) systems and products, secure communications systems, aircraft modernization, training and government services, and is a merchant supplier of a broad array of high technology products. Its customers include the Department of Defense, Department of Homeland Security, selected U.S. government intelligence agencies and aerospace prime contractors.

-ends-

http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2004/Jun/1049245.htm
[Link fixed]

[Aussie Digger]

Here's a new announcement for further upgrades to the RAAF's F/A-18 Fleet.

F/A-18 HORNET STRIKE CAPABILITY TO GET MAJOR BOOST



Australia’s F/A-18 Hornet fighter aircraft will be equipped with state-of-the-art target designation systems, under a project worth more than $100 million that was approved by the Government today.

Defence Minister Robert Hill said the systems were a vital part of the Hornet’s weapons suite.

"The target designation systems will improve the detection, identification, precision targeting and damage assessment phases of F/A-18 strike and offensive air support operations," Senator Hill said.

"This means the aircraft will be better equipped to detect and attack targets by day or night, increasing their operational effectiveness and reducing risk to aircraft and crew."

The project will equip the Hornets with a proven, self-contained, current generation targeting and laser designation system – upgrading the current Nite Hawk Forward Looking Infra-red pod with state-of-the-art technology.

Defence will assess three systems: the Advanced Targeting Forward Looking Infra-Red (ATFLIR) pod manufactured by Raytheon, the Pantera pod manufactured by Lockheed Martin, and the Litening AT pod manufactured by RAFAEL and Northrop Grumman.

"The pods produce an image of the target area (similar to a black and white television picture) on a screen in the cockpit. The pilot is able to use this image to exactly designate the desired target, to maximise accuracy and minimise collateral damage. The pods also include a laser system, allowing for the employment of precision laser guided bombs."

Senator Hill said Defence would release a restricted Request for Tender to the makers of suitable target designation systems. After assessment of the responses, a decision on the preferred replacement will be made next year. The first squadron is expected to be equipped with the new system by early 2007.

"This project is one of a number of planned upgrades to the Hornet aircraft that will ensure the potent strike capability of our fighter fleet," Senator Hill said.


The Pantera pod is the "international" version of the Sniper XR targeting pod, selected for USAF F-16's and F-15E's. I personally hope the ATFLIR pod is chosen based on my knowledge of these systems, but any of these 3 will be a major step forward for ou F/A-18's as the Minister correctly noted... Cheers.

[Aussie Digger]

Our F/A-18's are already very good. Projects like this one will keep improving their capability massively...

SaabTech Receives Order for Test and Trial of BOL Countermeasures Dispensing System for the Australian Air Force’s F-18s


(Source: Saab AB; issued July 20, 2004)


The Commonwealth of Australia has awarded SaabTech an order for adaptation and flight trials of the BOL Countermeasure Dispensing System for the Royal Australian Air Force’s F/A-18 Hornet.

"We are proud to be selected to be evaluated on the Australian Air Force’s F/A-18 fighters. The order shows that the BOL system is a world leading product well-established in the field of self-protection internationally," says SaabTech’s president Björn Erman.

The Australian Air Force will be the first customer to evaluate BOL on the F/A-18. The test and trial contract, that is valued at 16,5 MSEK (approx 2,2 MUSD), opens up for later manufacturing programs.

SaabTech will support RAAF flight trials scheduled for the 4th quarter of 2004. The trial is part of the Hornet Upgrade Program phase 2.3, which is an improvement to the aircraft's Electronic Warfare Self Protection. This program is believed to be the largest fighter aircraft improvement project in the world today. A successful trial may be followed by a production order for equipping an undisclosed number of F/A-18s with BOL dispensers.

The configuration for the F/A-18s is four BOLs per aircraft, comprising two conformal mountings on weapon pylons. This number of dispensers will dramatically increase the amount of expendables carried by each aircraft, and so lead to improved survivability against a variety of missile threats.

The Melbourne-based company Aerostructures has been contracted for the development of the pylon modification kit.

The BOL system from Saab is an Advanced Countermeasures Dispenser with proven superior performance. It holds 160 chaff/flare packages, up to five times more than conventional dispensers. Placed out on the wings, vortices will greatly improve dispersion and provide the rapid blooming rate essential to breaking radar locks and, in pre-emptive mode, deny acquisition of IR-seekers.

The system is in operational service on US Navy’s F-14 Tomcat, UK Harrier GR7 and Tornado, and USAir Force’s/Air National Guard’s F-15 Eagle. The system is currently in production for US Air Force’s/Air National Guard’s F-15 Eagle, EF-2000 Typhoon and the Swedish JAS-39 Gripen.

SaabTech is a leading supplier of Avionics and Electronic Warfare Systems on the international market, and a principal supplier to the Gripen fighter. SaabTech is a member of the Saab Group, one of the world’s leading high-technology companies, with its main operations focusing on defence, aviation and space. The group covers a broad spectrum of competence and capabilities in systems integration.

[yasin_khan]

nic pics and i think it will also work well.

[umair]

The hornet is a good fighter AD.But still I'd always preffer a Viper over it in any role ;) eg in the air-ground role the Falcon has a higher absolute weapons load(even higher than the super hornet) for the same combat radius.

[Aussie Digger]

The RAAF evaluated F-16's against F/A-18's and F-15's. F-15's weren't chosen as they were too "expensive" and it was thought they wouldn't last in production (how many F/A-18 A/B/C/D's are being made these days?). They chose the F/A-18 (obviously) over the Falcon, due to it's twin engine design (much safer over water, very appropriate for Australia's strategic environment) and a greater strike capability for the Hornet over the Falcon. The Falcons for instance do not possess a maritime strike capability (though one could be added easily enough) and the Falcon was considered inferior in air to air by the RAAF. The Falcon was cheaper though, and much more money has been poured into the development of the F-16. The F-18's were a good choice for the RAAF though, who have been happy with their performance.

[umair]

That inferiority may have been due to the fact that although the Falcon A/B could easily carry BVR aams, the USAF did'nt mate them with such weapons untill the block-15S(PAF version) and the C/Ds came onto the scene.Besides AD I read sometime ago in a book written by Bill Gunston that there is no concrete evidence to show that twin engined platforms confer greater safety than single engined platforms.He discounted this notion as just a myth.Anhoo you guys know whats best for your selves and RAAF.

[gf0012-aust]

That inferiority may have been due to the fact that although the Falcon A/B could easily carry BVR aams, the USAF did'nt mate them with such weapons untill the block-15S(PAF version) and the C/Ds came onto the scene.Besides AD I read sometime ago in a book written by Bill Gunston that there is no concrete evidence to show that twin engined platforms confer greater safety than single engined platforms.He discounted this notion as just a myth.Anhoo you guys know whats best for your selves and RAAF.

Umair, the issue of dual engines was because of redundancy.. At the time (and it's still relevant wrt to long range passenger jets) the feeling was that the loss of one engine would not risk the aircraft completely if it was compromised.

Thrust/power to weight ratios were better with twins than with singles - which is still a trend even with the Russians. Probably the other relevant common denominator is that those countries with huge geographical differences (US, Russia, Canada, Australia and China) all prefer twins for long range strike. There is still a preference for long range autonomous aircraft due to our geographical makeup and the fact that singles can't carry the same loadout the same distance without AAR. It's more of a depth of capability issue.

I'd still rather be in a plane with twins than a single. Having been in an aircraft where one engine "let go", I was more than greatful that we had another one to get us home. Maybe it's my IT background as well, but the MILSPEC and IT industries have a common denominator with respect to the issue of redundancy. ;)

[Aussie Digger]

JP 129: Release of Request For Tender (RFT)


(Source: Australian Defence Materiel Organisation; issued July 28, 2004; edited version)


The Project Office released the Request for Tender (RFT) for formal solicitation on 28 July 2004.

Interested companies should contact the Project Office via facsimile only (see contact details) to register a request to receive a copy of the Request for Tender (RFT). Requests are to be received no later than 27 August 2004. Requests received after this date will not be actioned by the Project Office. Requests are to include details of the mailing address to which the RFT documentation is to be sent. CD ROMs containing the RFT documentation in DOORS 7.1 format will be despatched within two working days of receipt of requests. Industry should note that only those companies with an Australian national facilities and information systems security clearance of RESTRICTED or higher, will be provided with the full suite of documentation.

The closing date for the reception of Tenders is 12 Noon 23 November 2004. Tenders are to be delivered to the address contained in the RFT documentation.

The RFT was developed using the ASDEFCON Strategic Materiel and Support Templates. The RFT has been issued for formal solicitation using the requirement management tool DOORS Version 7.1. Tenderers will be required to respond in this format and failure to do so may result in a tender being deemed non-compliant.


INDUSTRY BRIEFING

A project Industry Briefing will be held in Canberra from 0900h to 1200h on 25 August 2004 and pre-booked individual company briefings, addressing specific aspects of the RFT, will be held on 25 August through to 27 August 2004. Registration for the Industry Briefing and the booking of individual meetings is to be completed through the Project Office via facsimile only no later than18 August 2004. All requests for individual meetings are to be accompanied by a list of questions to be addressed at the meeting. Further details on the briefings are outlined in the RFT Conditions of Tender


BACKGROUND:

JP129 seeks to acquire a Tactical Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (TUAV) system capable of providing airborne surveillance, reconnaissance and target acquisition to support land operations. The lack of this level of capability is currently recognised as a significant deficiency in Australia's national surveillance architecture, particularly for land and littoral operations.

The Defence Capability Plan (pages 73-4) states that the ADF will acquire TUAVs with an expected in-service date of 2008 to 2010. Estimated total project budget for JP129 Phase 2 is $A100 to $150 million.

Phase 1
JP129 Phase 1 was a Risk Mitigation Phase that assisted Capability Staff in providing options for systems representative of a mature surveillance system. Additionally, it sought to develop the JP129 concept and mitigate the technical and financial acquisition risks.
JP129 Phase 1 was completed late in 2001.

Phase 2 Objectives
Under Phase 2 the ADF intends to acquire a TUAV system to enhance the reconnaissance and surveillance capabilities of deployed land forces, by overcoming the limitations of mobility, terrain and range experienced by current capabilities. The system will fill capability gaps identified in Army’s current Intelligence, Surveillance, Target Acquisition and Reconnaissance (ISTAR) architecture by providing:
a) Near Real Time (NRT) reconnaissance capability for a deployed Joint Task Force;
b) an integral, responsive and accurate target acquisition system capable of providing a NRT sensor-to-decider-to-response asset link; and
c) Battle Damage Assessment (BDA) capability.

The system acquired will consist of air vehicles fitted with sensor payloads, a ground segment to provide control and exploitation functions, and elements for maintenance and logistics support. The TUAV system elements are to be structured around the establishment of, and supply of capability to, three operational troops and a training element.


ACQUISITION STRATEGY
The Commonwealth is intending to acquire a mature TUAV system from an open tender selection process based on the most recent Commonwealth Procurement Guidelines, including the application of Defence acquisition reform strategies. At this stage JP129 will acquire non-developmental systems based on proven designs.
The JP129 Acquisition Strategy was approved by USDM on 20 December 2002.


AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRY INVOLVEMENT
Australian Industry Involvement (AII) is an important initiative within the Defence Materiel Organisation that aims to maximise opportunities for local industry.

The following elements of JP129 have been identified as possible AII target activities:

--Image analysis and mission planning software.
--Sensor information database management.
--Development of air to ground datalinking infrastructure.
--Integration of sensors and avionics into air vehicles.
--Through Life Support.


SCHEDULE
The major milestones of the current JP129 schedule are identified below. The schedule information currently available may undergo significant change throughout the project’s life. A more robust and definite schedule will be developed after the receipt of tender responses.

--RFT Release: 28 July 2004
--Industry Brief: 25 August 2004
--Tenders Close: 23 November 2004
--Evaluation complete: May/June 2005
--Second Pass Approval from Government: Late 2005
--Preferred Tenderer Announced: Late 2005
--Contract Signature: Early 2006
--In Service Date: Latter half of 2008

-ends-
Obtained from:

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.4568405.1092028767.QRcJX8Oa9 dUAABm2XOM&modele=jdc_34

The Australian Army will probably get the Shadow 200 I reckon...

[Aussie Digger]

WORLD’S MOST MODERN MISSILES GIVE HORNETS A NEW STING

Australia’s F/A-18 Hornet fighter aircraft are now equipped with the world’s most modern missile capability following the introduction into service of the Advanced Short Range Air-to-Air Missile, Defence Minister Robert Hill announced today.

Senator Hill made the announcement at a special ceremony at RAAF Williamtown attended by the Member for Paterson, Bob Baldwin, Chief of the Air Force Angus Houston, Steve Wadey, managing director of ASRAAM manufacturer MBDA UK Ltd, and other RAAF and industry representatives.

"The Howard Government has invested $488 million to provide the Hornets with leading edge state-of-the art missile technology and capability," Senator Hill said.

"The ASRAAM is a short range heat-seeking missile capable of tracking and intercepting airborne targets. It has a significantly greater range than the Sidewinder missiles which it will replace.

"Combined with the Advanced Medium Range Air to Air Missile, which has an all-weather, beyond visual range ability to hit low-altitude targets, and supported by the APG-73 radar fitted under the Hornet upgrade program, the F/A-18s now have the world’s most modern missile capability."

ASRAAM was accepted for service in July following successful test firings at Jervis Bay Air Weapons Range earlier this year.

Senator Hill said that in addition to providing a capability boost for the Air Force, the project had delivered benefits to Australian industry and technology.

"RAAF personnel at Williamtown will be trained to handle the aircraft fitment and flight line support of the new missiles. These new skills will complement the significant Hornet support base which has already been established in the Hunter region," Senator Hill said.

"In addition, software support and deeper maintenance facilities are being established in Adelaide. These new facilities will inject some $20 million over the next six years into the South Australian economy and have the potential to create extra high-technology jobs at BAE Systems.

"As with many of today’s complex systems, software is a major portion of the missile’s capability. The software support facility, to be located at the Defence Science Technology Organisation at Edinburgh, will allow Australia to improve the ASRAAM software in response to the ADF’s specific requirements.

"The deeper maintenance capability will be established at BAE Systems at Edinburgh Park to ensure that Australians conduct missile maintenance in Australia."

Senator Hill said the ASRAAM project had resulted in closer ties between the ADF and the UK Ministry of Defence as the missile is already in service with the Royal Air Force, and was used on their Tornado aircraft during the Iraq conflict.

From www.defence.gov.au

[DRUB]

That inferiority may have been due to the fact that although the Falcon A/B could easily carry BVR aams, the USAF did'nt mate them with such weapons untill the block-15S(PAF version) and the C/Ds came onto the scene.Besides AD I read sometime ago in a book written by Bill Gunston that there is no concrete evidence to show that twin engined platforms confer greater safety than single engined platforms.He discounted this notion as just a myth.Anhoo you guys know whats best for your selves and RAAF.

Umair, the issue of dual engines was because of redundancy.. At the time (and it's still relevant wrt to long range passenger jets) the feeling was that the loss of one engine would not risk the aircraft completely if it was compromised.

Thrust/power to weight ratios were better with twins than with singles - which is still a trend even with the Russians. Probably the other relevant common denominator is that those countries with huge geographical differences (US, Russia, Canada, Australia and China) all prefer twins for long range strike. There is still a preference for long range autonomous aircraft due to our geographical makeup and the fact that singles can't carry the same loadout the same distance without AAR. It's more of a depth of capability issue.

I'd still rather be in a plane with twins than a single. Having been in an aircraft where one engine "let go", I was more than greatful that we had another one to get us home. Maybe it's my IT background as well, but the MILSPEC and IT industries have a common denominator with respect to the issue of redundancy. ;)

Sorry to divert the thread, but the fact that the JSF is a single, would it then be accurate to assume that the JSF is far better then the other options Oz is faced with when replacing the hornets?

[tatra]

Just watched the video footage of Wedgetail. Does anybody know the thingy is that the aircraft is dragging behind it from the top of the vertical stabilizer? Also, what's the little gizmo mounted at the rear of the hull belog the tail?

[gf0012-aust]

Sorry to divert the thread, but the fact that the JSF is a single, would it then be accurate to assume that the JSF is far better then the other options Oz is faced with when replacing the hornets?

DRUB, I don't think that there is an easy answer to that. Mostly because IMHO the issue of selection has been greatly influenced by political demands than would normally be considered.

My feeling has always been that under different circumstances we would have had a different platform mix and that part of that Hi-Lo mix would have seen the use of large twin engined solutions for interdiction and strike.

I am not that much of an advocate, and are yet to be convinced that a single fixed wing combat platform is available that can fulfill all of the roles of strike, interdiction, stand off, CAP etc at a competent and persistent level. But, I'm also one who believes that frontline combat elements are better served by having a manufacturer mix so as to also reduce dependancies and commercial vulnerabilities on the purchaser.

Some of the issues of range, assisted ferry etc are resolved by having organic fueling, but I still believe in having high unassisted autonomy in worst case scenarios.

[Aussie Digger]

It's a very much wait and see case with the RAAF's next generation fighter. It depends very much on whether the JSF lives up to it's promise, which political party is in office when the decision (around 2006) will need to be made, what happens to the price and level of capability of the F/A-22 etc.

If the US ends purchasing a larger number of F-22's and the price comes down significantly, you can bet your house on the RAAF doing everything it can to acquire even a small number of F-22's (say 24-28 jets). The chief of the Air force has openly admitted the RAAF wants the F-22, we just won't be able to afford it (probably).

A hi-lo mix of 24-28 F-22's and 70-80 JSF's would provide Australia with an awesome air combat capability far superior to anyone else in our region, but it remains to be seen if it happens...

[Aussie Digger]

LONG RANGE MISSILES FOR AIR FORCE

Australia’s F/A-18 Hornet fighter and AP-3C Orion maritime patrol aircraft will be equipped with long range missiles capable of destroying land and sea targets, Defence Minister Robert Hill announced today.

Senator Hill said Defence would choose from the following three long-range air-to-surface weapons:

Joint Air-to-Surface Stand-off Missile (JASSM) manufactured by American company Lockheed Martin which is a stealthy long range missile that can reach targets from about 400 kilometres away;

A variant of the precision-attack cruise missile KEPD 350 manufactured by the European company Taurus Systems GmbH that has a range of about 350 kilometres; and

The Stand-off Land Attack Missile – Expanded Response (SLAM-ER) manufactured by American-based Boeing that is modelled on the Harpoon anti-shipping missile, currently used by the Australian Defence Force and has a range of more than 250 kilometres.

"The new weapon will significantly enhance the ADF’s air strike capability, providing a long-range, accurate and lethal attack against a range of targets including fixed and re-locatable targets on land and sea," Senator Hill said.

"Combined with the new air-to-air missiles and upgraded precision-guided bombs, Australia’s fighter jets will be the region’s most lethal capacity for air combat and strike operations.

"The long range of these new missiles will reduce the risk to both aircraft and crew by decreasing their exposure in a high threat environment."

Defence will advise the Government of its preferred weapon next year after a process of information solicitation and evaluation. The project is worth $350-$450 million.

Senator Hill said the new weapons would be introduced into service between 2007 and 2009.

Obtained from www.defence.gov.au

The new missile will be the JASSM, no doubt. It's heaps cheaper than the others, has a longer range and will be available in a number of variants including an extended range version which will have a range in excess of 1000 kilometres...

[Aussie Digger]

DEFENCE MINISTER OPENS WORLD-CLASS AIRCRAFT TEST FACILITY



Defence Minister Robert Hill today officially opened a state-of-the-art facility where Defence scientists will undertake behind-the-scenes-work to ensure the aircraft used to train our fighter pilots of the future are safe.

The aircraft structural test centre at the Defence Science and Technology Organisation in Melbourne will be used to conduct fatigue tests on the Royal Australian Air Force’s new Hawk Lead-in Fighter aircraft.

"The Hawk Lead-in Fighter which is used to train Australia’s future fighter pilots will be the first aircraft to undergo a full-scale fatigue test in the new facility," Senator Hill said.

"The testing allows us to establish when and where structural failures are likely to occur in the aircraft so that we can put in place a pro-active repair and maintenance program that will allow the aircraft to keep flying safely.

"DSTO has won a $11.7 million contract with BAE Systems UK, manufacturers of the aircraft, to do the fatigue testing in Australia rather than overseas. This is not only a tribute to DSTO’s expertise but is expected to generate more than $10 million worth of contracted work for Australian industry.

"The aeronautical technology and expertise at DSTO is world class. It has been developed over years of test programs on aircraft including the F/A-18 and F-111. This expertise will position Australia well to bid for similar work on the Joint Strike Fighter."

The official opening of the H.A.Wills Structures and Materials Test Centre marks the first milestone in a $56 million project to redevelop DSTO’s Melbourne-based research facilities at one site in Fishermans Bend.

The centre is named after the former Australian Defence scientist Arthur Wills who pioneered the theory and practice of aircraft structural testing that is now followed by aircraft manufacturers worldwide.

It houses two laboratories which will undertake fatigue and fracture tests in addition to structural tests on large articles, such as aircraft wings and airframes, as well as large maritime components. It will also assist in accident investigations resulting from structural failures.

Also obtained from www.defence.gov.au

[Magoo]

Just watched the video footage of Wedgetail. Does anybody know the thingy is that the aircraft is dragging behind it from the top of the vertical stabilizer? Also, what's the little gizmo mounted at the rear of the hull belog the tail?

The thingy is an instrumented drogue parachute which measures the turbulence in the air coming off the radar antenna and other external mods.

The gizmo at the rear of the hul could either be the additional small stabilators they added to enhance directional stability, or the sensor for the AN/AAQ-24 directional infrared countermeasure (DIRCM) system.

Magoo

[Magoo]

AD

I was wondering where you got that latest RAAF air-to-air Hornet pic you posted. Is there a High res version around which I could 'acquire' for a book project I'm working on?

Cheers

Magoo

[WebMaster]

Here you go:

http://www.defencetalk.com/pictures/displayimage.php?album=207&pos=38

[Magoo]

Here you go:

http://www.defencetalk.com/pictures/displayimage.php?album=207&pos=38

Thanks, but I was hoping to get access to an original high res pic (i.e. 300dpi, 400kb+) and information on where and when it was taken and by whom.

Thanks

P.S. BTW - I notice the SLAM-ER and JASSM pics have been mislabeled the wrong way round - just need to swap them.

Cheers

[Aussie Digger]

Sorry Magoo, that's the highest rez pic of that particular photo I could find. It was from a website called www.scramble.nl I think...

[Aussie Digger]

$9.1 MILLION DEFENCE CONTRACT FOR BAE SYSTEMS

BAE Systems in South Australia has won a $9.1 million contract to provide radar warning receivers for the Australia’s F/A-18 Hornet fighter aircraft, Defence Minister Robert Hill announced today.

Senator Hill said that the $9.1 million contract covered an initial production run of four ALR-2002B Radar Warning Receivers, including establishing the means of production.

“Electronic Warfare systems such as these radar warning receivers are an
increasingly important capability for all land, sea and air platforms,� Senator Hill said. “The ALR-2002 is a very capable and affordable system with the potential for further domestic and export sales.

“A radar warning receiver detects transmissions from ground and air radar systems, then identifies exactly what it is – such as a particular type of aircraft, a radar homing missile, a ground gunnery system, a ship or a surveillance radar system – and displays this information to the pilot.

“The pilot can then use this situational awareness information to take evasive action, avoid a threat, or attack and destroy an enemy asset. “The Coalition Government has recognised the importance of this equipment and is taking steps to fit it to a range of Defence assets.�

The proposed initial production program for the ALR-2002 will see the
establishment of 20 jobs within the BAE SYSTEMS facility at Edinburgh Parks in South Australia.

Once in full production, 65 engineer/technician jobs would be created within BAE SYSTEMS over a three year span and around 15 positions created within Micreo Ltd., an advanced technology company located in Brisbane that has also been successful in gaining several Joint Strike Fighter contracts for electronic warfare.

Additional ALR-2002 orders, locally or internationally, could sustain this
employment for up to a decade. The contract follows the selection of BAE SYSTEMS as the preferred supplier for Project Echidna Phase 2A. Echidna Phase 2A is to provide advanced electronic warfare self-protection equipment including the ALR-2002 for the Army’s fleet of
Black Hawk and Chinook aircraft.

This has recently included the first phase of a $20 million project to acquire electronic warfare equipment for the RAAF’s C-130J aircraft, which have deployed to the Middle East.

The ALR-2002 has also been identified as the preferred radar warning receiver for the F/A-18 Hornet under the Hornet Upgrade program which is a significant enhancement of the current electronic warfare self-protection suite. The ALR-2002 Radar Warning Receiver was originally conceived by the Defence Science and Technology Organisation (DSTO) and was further developed to a near production standard by BAE SYSTEMS under an earlier phase of Project Echidna.

This step towards a full acquisition of the ALR-2002 proves once again Australia’s excellence in electronic warfare design, development production and through life support. The fact that the ALR-2002 has now entered initial production demonstrates that it is cost-effective to design, develop and produce Electronic Warfare systems here in Australia.

-ends-.

Obtained from http://www.liberal.org.au/ministers_press_releases/

[Nulla]

I was hoping that the US Navy will lend us some off there late model F18 untill we get the F35. Some of the airframes we have are getting a bit past it. I think this is similar to the idea of the US lending the F4's while we were waiting for the F111

[Aussie Digger]

The Government and the RAAF looked at the idea, but decided it would be more "cost effective" to continue the Hornet Upgrade program and introduce new bombs and standoff missiles (which should have been part of the inventory anyway, not "additional purchases")...

Acquiring Super Hornets for a 10 year period or so, would have cost an estimated $3 Billion. They preferred to spend the money on other more useful projects that will enhance our overall capability, not one specific part of it...

[Supe]

The idiotic thing about this project is that Australia designed some of the critical elements of the system and agreed that Boeing could sell future models without paying us a royalty for development.

Bloody morons in govt strike again. The aust'n taxpayer pays for R&D and Boeing gets the rewards...

A bit of a thread revival... and thanks to the Wedgetail

Could you elaborate on which critical elements were designed locally?

I see the Turks are buying the 'Peace Eagle' which appears in large part to be similar to the Wedgetail.

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/737aewc/

[Aussie Digger]

Another thread revival this time courtesy of EADS:

MADRID --- The first Royal Australian Air Force’s A330 Multi-Role Tanker Transport has been put back on wheels. This is a significant milestone for the A330 MRTT programme, which represents the finalisation of the major structural modification in the A330 platform. The conversion into multi role tanker transport of these aircraft is being carried out by EADS CASA at its facilities in Getafe, Madrid.

The aircraft is being prepared for the Ground Vibration Testing that will initiate the ground test campaign. It will be preceding the start of the flight test campaign.

This aircraft is the first of the five A330 MRTT to be delivered to the Royal Australian Air Force as part of the contract signed on December 20, 2004, between EADS CASA and the Commonwealth of Australia.

The A330 MRTT is the most advanced Mission System Tanker aircraft in the world. The Royal Australian Air Force A330 MRTT will be outfitted with a state-of-the-art centerline ARBS (Air Refueling Boom System) with fly-by-wire controls, plus two under-wing hose and drogue pods. In addition, the aircraft will carry an electronic warfare suite that protects against sur-face-to-air missile threats, along with a Link 16 network system that provi-des real-time airborne connectivity.


EADS is a global leader in aerospace, defence and related services. In 2005, EADS generated revenues of EUR 34.2 billion and employed a work-force of about 113,000. The Group includes the aircraft manufacturer Air-bus, the world's largest helicopter supplier Eurocopter and EADS Astrium, the European leader in space programmes from Ariane to Galileo. EADS is the major partner in the Eurofighter consortium, develops the A400M military transport aircraft, and holds a stake in the joint venture MBDA, the international leader in missile systems.


(Source: EADS; issued Feb. 19, 2007)

I guess Dr Kopp will be somewhat impressed to see RAAF persuing his beloved "Smart Tanker" idea. I wonder if he'll try and charge royalties? Now all it will take is a follow-on order for another 11x "747 sized" tankers and RAAF might be able to defend Australia...

Unless we're attacked by H-6M's of course... :onfloorl:

[alexsa]

I guess Dr Kopp will be somewhat impressed to see RAAF persuing his beloved "Smart Tanker" idea. I wonder if he'll try and charge royalties? Now all it will take is a follow-on order for another 11x "747 sized" tankers and RAAF might be able to defend Australia...

Unless we're attacked by H-6M's of course... :onfloorl:

If we follow his strategy we will need them as there will be no money for an Army or Navy and we will simply have to rely on F-22 and super F-111 covering the SLOCs (opps he seems to forget we are an island and rely on trade and have to go places a bit far away for force projection) ...... until they run out of airframe hours.

[abramsteve]

Poor Dr Kopp...
His hearts in the right place though I suppose :)

[Magoo]

Poor Dr Kopp...
His hearts in the right place though I suppose :)

Come on guys, that's a bit patronising isn't it??? Don't belittle or dismiss the man's credibility in such a flippant way. :(

Carlo Kopp knows more about advanced aircraft systems than all of us on this forum combined, and whether or not you agree with his thoughts, he deserves a great deal of respect.

Magoo

[Aussie Digger]

Come on guys, that's a bit patronising isn't it??? Don't belittle or dismiss the man's credibility in such a flippant way. :(

Carlo Kopp knows more about advanced aircraft systems than all of us on this forum combined, and whether or not you agree with his thoughts, he deserves a great deal of respect.

Magoo

It wouldn't HURT him to learn a bit of humility though. I've seen him personally attack the credentials of those who differ from his opinion on any number of occasions.

Public statements about his "sleeping problems" in front of Senate Committees make one wonder about how much respect he truly deserves...

Regards

AD.

[abramsteve]

You are correct Magoo. I do genuinley believe he has Australia's best interest at heart, hence the reason for my last coment. No disrespect intended:)

[rjmaz1]

Come on guys, that's a bit patronising isn't it??? Don't belittle or dismiss the man's credibility in such a flippant way. :(

Carlo Kopp knows more about advanced aircraft systems than all of us on this forum combined, and whether or not you agree with his thoughts, he deserves a great deal of respect.

Magoo
People do respect his idea's and most agree that they would provide exceptional firepower.

However, Carlo Kopp completely forgot the big picture in terms of cost effectiveness. Some of his idea's are very good but he took it too far in my opinion.

You could easily say lets buy 200 F-22's it would provide more firepower than 100 F-22's. Of course that is correct but where will the money come from??

Australia has a very limited budget and always tries to fight above its weight, buying the systems with the most 'bang for your buck' is the only way we can sustain this.

[Magoo]

People do respect his idea's and most agree that they would provide exceptional firepower.

However, Carlo Kopp completely forgot the big picture in terms of cost effectiveness. Some of his idea's are very good but he took it too far in my opinion.

You could easily say lets buy 200 F-22's it would provide more firepower than 100 F-22's. Of course that is correct but where will the money come from??

Australia has a very limited budget and always tries to fight above its weight, buying the systems with the most 'bang for your buck' is the only way we can sustain this.


Is it just me, or do others find the fact that rjmaz1 is questionning the voracity of other people's claims and comments rather ironic???:unknown

*Geesh*

Magoo

[phreeky]

I think it's a little sad people are so obsessed with critisising others public comments in general. Why AD brought it up (post #53) I'm really not too sure.

Anyway lets hope the tankers work out alright.

[rossfrb_1]

Another thread revival this time courtesy of EADS:

[snip]
The A330 MRTT is the most advanced Mission System Tanker aircraft in the world. The Royal Australian Air Force A330 MRTT will be outfitted with a state-of-the-art centerline ARBS (Air Refueling Boom System) with fly-by-wire controls, plus two under-wing hose and drogue pods....



As I thought I understood it. The Hornets require hose drogue, the F-111s boom, the Hercs are partially plumbed for boom (??). The Chooks ?
Existing RAAF 707 AAR are drogue equipped only, ie Hornet only. If the Pigs are going in 2010ish is there still a need for boom refueling?

rb

[Magoo]

As I thought I understood it. The Hornets require hose drogue, the F-111s boom, the Hercs are partially plumbed for boom (??). The Chooks ?
Existing RAAF 707 AAR are drogue equipped only, ie Hornet only. If the Pigs are going in 2010ish is there still a need for boom refueling?

rb

Yep, JSF uses booms!

The Chinooks are not currently air refuellable, however if plans to upgrade them to CH-47F standard come to fruiting, they will be, although not from an A330! The C-130Js are plumbed for but not equipped with receptacles for AAR.

Cheers

Magoo

[Tasman]

Does anyone know what is the current thinking in the RAAF regarding some of the transport aircraft to be replaced or upgraded under Air 8000 in the Defence Capability Plan, being fitted as tankers? IMO, 4- 6 so equipped would provide a huge boost to the capability of Australia's helicopter units.

Cheers

PS: I just read Magoo's comments about the Chinooks needing to be upgraded to enable this. What is the situation with the NH90s?

[Todjaeger]

As I thought I understood it. The Hornets require hose drogue, the F-111s boom, the Hercs are partially plumbed for boom (??). The Chooks ?
Existing RAAF 707 AAR are drogue equipped only, ie Hornet only. If the Pigs are going in 2010ish is there still a need for boom refueling?

rb

As I understand it (if any one knows better, please correct me) but boom refuelers can have an attachment to allow drogue refueling, while aircraft dedicated to drogue refueling aren't able to also engage in boom refueling. IIRC that ended up causing a problem for the USAF at one point in the gulf, because there were refuelers for USN aircraft (mainly drogue) that were unable to AAR USAF warplanes.

Onto a slightly touchy subject re: RAAF AAR requirements. I was reading the Air Power Australia piece by Dr. Kopp & Mr. Cooper, http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2005-02.pdf

and there was mention of the Aerial Refueling Gap where the following statement was made...


Conventional metrics for aerial refuelling fleet sizing indicate that
the RAAF should be operating at least 18 to 25 KC-135R equivalent
tankers, given the size of its current and planned fighter fleet.


What I was wonder, is what the "conventional metrics" being referred to are?Doing rough (very rough) calculations, it seems that the point being advocated is that Australia should maintain the same or greater scale of AAR capacity as the US does per aircraft. I'm interested in finding out what determines the required AAR capacity for the RAAF.

-Cheers

[Magoo]

Does anyone know what is the current thinking in the RAAF regarding some of the transport aircraft to be replaced or upgraded under Air 8000 in the Defence Capability Plan, being fitted as tankers? IMO, 4- 6 so equipped would provide a huge boost to the capability of Australia's helicopter units.

Probably worth either starting a new thread or digging up the one we were on about six months ago for this, but there's no new news since that time.

PS: I just read Magoo's comments about the Chinooks needing to be upgraded to enable this. What is the situation with the NH90s?

The MRH90s will also be plumbed for AAR but will likely not be fitted, initially at least, with the probe unless we get some C-130 tankers as well.

Cheers

Magoo

[Magoo]

What I was wonder, is what the "conventional metrics" being referred to are?Doing rough (very rough) calculations, it seems that the point being advocated is that Australia should maintain the same or greater scale of AAR capacity as the US does per aircraft. I'm interested in finding out what determines the required AAR capacity for the RAAF.

The metrics allow for X number of aircraft to be down at any one time. For the USAF which has 500+ tankers in its inventory (40-odd of which, KC-135Es, are currently grounded due to fatigue issues), they can afford to lose a few aircraft to maintenance issues without overly affecting their AAR capacity. However, fo an air force which has five tankers, one of which will likely be in some stage of regular maintenance, if you lose another one to a maintenance issue, you're suddenly down 40 per cent of your total AAR capacity!

I'm not sure about the 20-odd numbers Carlo talks about but, despite five A330s effectively having four to six times the capability of four 707s, the RAAF could certainly use a few more tankers in order to maintain a proper operational capability.

Cheers

Magoo

[rossfrb_1]

[snip]
Onto a slightly touchy subject re: RAAF AAR requirements. I was reading the Air Power Australia piece by Dr. Kopp & Mr. Cooper, http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2005-02.pdf
[snip]
What I was wonder, is what the "conventional metrics" being referred to are?Doing rough (very rough) calculations, it seems that the point being advocated is that Australia should maintain the same or greater scale of AAR capacity as the US does per aircraft. I'm interested in finding out what determines the required AAR capacity for the RAAF.

-Cheers
Don't have time ATM to find and digest that part but
I found the following (where he seems to indicate a more modest 8-12)
http://www.ausairpower.net/TE-AAR-Perspective-90.html

".... From the global perspective the RAAF's tanker force is modest in size and capability, but it is beyond any doubt a significant step in the right direction. With the currently benign regional environment and financially restrained mood in Canberra it will be difficult for the RAAF to make a strong case for a full size operational force of 8-12 boom, pod and fuel cell equipped tankers, however the increasing tendency toward instability throughout the Pacific and the growing power projection capability of India in the region could see changes further down the track...."

chronologically this article is older (1990 - although apparently updated 2005)
rb

[rjmaz1]

If all our missions require the use of tankers then that is sending a strong message that the aircraft we are using do not have enough range.

If every strike mission requires tankers and every escort aircraft requires tankers, then the entire airforce is limited by the amount of tankers available. Thats a very bad thing.

Say 5 tankers will be able to perform a big strike mission, but could not sustain multiple missions around the clock.
1 of the 5 tankers will most likely be unavailable.
1 tanker will be dedicated for keeping the wedgetails in the air.
1 tanker will be used to keep a combat air patrol in the air.
That leaves 2 tankers to perform offensive strikes.

So a 5 tanker fleet will allow us to send 10 aircraft to strike indonesia, with probably a single strike per day. Thats pretty much rehashing what Carlo Kopp analyse worked out, far from ideal.

I can easily see the need for 10 tankers in a war time situation, any more would not be cost effective.

Though buying aircraft that dont require tankers would be by far the best option. This is very hard though consider Australia is extremely large and potential targets are over 1000 miles away.

[swerve]

...The MRH90s will also be plumbed for AAR but will likely not be fitted, initially at least, with the probe unless we get some C-130 tankers as well.

Cheers

Magoo

Or A400M & some tanker kits . . . . .

[Aussie Digger]

If all our missions require the use of tankers then that is sending a strong message that the aircraft we are using do not have enough range.

If every strike mission requires tankers and every escort aircraft requires tankers, then the entire airforce is limited by the amount of tankers available. Thats a very bad thing.

Say 5 tankers will be able to perform a big strike mission, but could not sustain multiple missions around the clock.
1 of the 5 tankers will most likely be unavailable.
1 tanker will be dedicated for keeping the wedgetails in the air.
1 tanker will be used to keep a combat air patrol in the air.
That leaves 2 tankers to perform offensive strikes.

So a 5 tanker fleet will allow us to send 10 aircraft to strike indonesia, with probably a single strike per day. Thats pretty much rehashing what Carlo Kopp analyse worked out, far from ideal.

I can easily see the need for 10 tankers in a war time situation, any more would not be cost effective.

Though buying aircraft that dont require tankers would be by far the best option. This is very hard though consider Australia is extremely large and potential targets are over 1000 miles away.

There is no strike aircraft we can buy that don't require refuellers. Even B-2's are refuelled.

The Super Hornet with the JASSM-ER (likely to be acquired under phase 2 of the FoSoW project) will allow us to effectively strike to ranges of roughly 2000k's. This should be enough to "hit Jakarta" or whatever Indonesian target we need to hit (if any).

I'd like to see "buddy" refuelling kits acquired along with the Super Hornet purchase, it'd go a long way to "picking up the slack" that only 5x KC-30's will provide.

As to Phreeky's question. Kopp is probably the most prolific defence "journalist" in Australia. I've even seen his articles appear in Air International and Air Forces Monthly from time to time.

Anyone who makes public comment on something ought to be prepared to have your opinion challenged. Particularly when a LARGE part of his work seems to consist of criticising the work of others.

If you think that is obsessive, well maybe you should stop commenting publicly. I would not even attempt to stop Dr Kopp coming here and criticising my opinions... As to why I brought it up. It was relevent to the tanker issue we are discussing...

[Magoo]

Or A400M & some tanker kits . . . . .

Too far away...we'd be lucky to see an A400M before 2012.

Magoo

[rjmaz1]

There is no strike aircraft we can buy that don't require refuellers. Even B-2's are refuelled.
If the targets is within range of internal fuel then the B-2's and B-1b would be refueled.

Completely different mission require. A B-2 or B-1b used for inter-continental strike will require inflight refueling. However the same aircraft providing region bombing would not require inflight refueling at all.

Indonesia, Malaysia, PNG, Fiji etc can all be reached on internal fuel.

To strike indonesia say 20 Super Hornets with 4 tankers + wedgetail would be required. With 3/4 of the Hornets set up for strike. As this would use up most of the assets we would be able to perform one strike per day.

If even a single b-1b is used it can replace ALL the strike hornets, and reducing the number of escort hornets by half. So 1 b-1b, 3 Super hornets, 1 tanker and 1 wedgetail.

So a reduction from 25 aircraft to only 6 aircraft. If only 4-5 B-1b's were purchased we would have enough aircraft to sustain multiple strikes around the clock, with no aircraft aircraft.

We'd need over 200 Super Hornets and 20 tankers to sustain the same offensive force as 5 B-1b, 70 Super Hornets and 5 tankers.

Yes the B-1b would cost HEAPS to operate but the siginificantly reduced pressure on tankers and the fighter fleet would easily make up for the cost.

Buddy refueling? thats a joke, you then need twice as many hornets. Now over 40 aircraft are required to perform the same as 6 aircraft..

This was the idea behind Carlo Kopp's evolved F-111. It would reduce the tanking required and he clearly showed the advnatages of less tanking. It boosted nearly every other area once the strike force didn't need tanking.

The B-1b is a big F-111, it allows 4 F-111's worth of weapons to be dropped twice as far away. This isn't the main reason why i believe the B-1b is better than the evolved F-111. The main reason is the reduced risk, all upgrades are available off the shelf and perfectly flyable mothballed airframes are available. The US has already made B-1b's operational that were mothballed. Very little risk with this option.

[Todjaeger]

The metrics allow for X number of aircraft to be down at any one time. For the USAF which has 500+ tankers in its inventory (40-odd of which, KC-135Es, are currently grounded due to fatigue issues), they can afford to lose a few aircraft to maintenance issues without overly affecting their AAR capacity. However, fo an air force which has five tankers, one of which will likely be in some stage of regular maintenance, if you lose another one to a maintenance issue, you're suddenly down 40 per cent of your total AAR capacity!

I'm not sure about the 20-odd numbers Carlo talks about but, despite five A330s effectively having four to six times the capability of four 707s, the RAAF could certainly use a few more tankers in order to maintain a proper operational capability.

Cheers

Magoo

Ah, okay. It struck me as, odd... That someone would advocate having as much AAR capacity per aircraft as the US, given that few air forces conduct as many farflung operations as the USAF, as regularly. I will say though, that I would like to see the RAAF get a dozen or so KC-130Js perhaps to replace the existing C-130Hs. That would provide a nice boost to AAR operations, as well as allowing AAR for helicopters.

-Cheers

[Tasman]

If the targets is within range of internal fuel then the B-2's and B-1b would be refueled.

Completely different mission require. A B-2 or B-1b used for inter-continental strike will require inflight refueling. However the same aircraft providing region bombing would not require inflight refueling at all.

Indonesia, Malaysia, PNG, Fiji etc can all be reached on internal fuel.


I would have thought that even a B-1B might require a top up of fuel after takeoff if it is carrying a maximum weapons load.

To strike indonesia say 20 Super Hornets with 4 tankers + wedgetail would be required. With 3/4 of the Hornets set up for strike. As this would use up most of the assets we would be able to perform one strike per day.

If even a single b-1b is used it can replace ALL the strike hornets, and reducing the number of escort hornets by half. So 1 b-1b, 3 Super hornets, 1 tanker and 1 wedgetail.



This starts to look like the RAF Vulcan strike on the Stanley airfield in the Falklands War. How much damage do you expect a single bomber to cause, even a B-1B? Which would be easier to intercept, a single B-1B or 15 Super Hornets (or JSFs)?

So a reduction from 25 aircraft to only 6 aircraft. If only 4-5 B-1b's were purchased we would have enough aircraft to sustain multiple strikes around the clock, with no aircraft aircraft.

We'd need over 200 Super Hornets and 20 tankers to sustain the same offensive force as 5 B-1b, 70 Super Hornets and 5 tankers.

Yes the B-1b would cost HEAPS to operate but the siginificantly reduced pressure on tankers and the fighter fleet would easily make up for the cost.




If this is such a good option, how come no one in the RAAF has put the idea forward as an option?

Buddy refueling? thats a joke, you then need twice as many hornets. Now over 40 aircraft are required to perform the same as 6 aircraft..



If it’s a joke why is it used by a force with huge resources like the USN?

This was the idea behind Carlo Kopp's evolved F-111. It would reduce the tanking required and he clearly showed the advnatages of less tanking. It boosted nearly every other area once the strike force didn't need tanking.



I obviously misread what APA was advocating! I thought Carlo Kopp wanted a huge increase in the number of tankers to go with evolved F111s.

The B-1b is a big F-111, it allows 4 F-111's worth of weapons to be dropped twice as far away. This isn't the main reason why i believe the B-1b is better than the evolved F-111. The main reason is the reduced risk, all upgrades are available off the shelf and perfectly flyable mothballed airframes are available. The US has already made B-1b's operational that were mothballed. Very little risk with this option

You have raised the B-1B option in other threads. Where is the evidence that they would be available to the RAAF? Surely the USAF would want the mothballed aircraft to keep its operational force up to strength.

Cheers

[abramsteve]

If it’s a joke why is it used by a force with huge resources like the USN?

I agree with where you are coming from, however I beleive that doing this has caused a great deal problems. It also seems to be a sore spot with some in the USN...

Another way this could be looked at is that its only a good option when a huge amount of resources are available (eg the USN)



You have raised the B-1B option in other threads. Where is the evidence that they would be available to the RAAF? Surely the USAF would want the mothballed aircraft to keep its operational force up to strength.

Cheers

I like the idea, however I believe thats all it may ever be. Sure is a nice dream though:rolleyes:

[old faithful]

Will the 707 fleet be completely retired when the A330,s are operational? How much life is left in them?

[swerve]

I would have thought that even a B-1B might require a top up of fuel after takeoff if it is carrying a maximum weapons load.

Depends on how far it's going.


This starts to look like the RAF Vulcan strike on the Stanley airfield in the Falklands War. ...
Cheers

But there's your answer - build Vulcans! I'm sure BAe wouldn't object, & would be happy to provide copies of any surviving documentation. Modern engines (must be some whcih could be made to fit - & would be more economical, hence longer range) & avionics - aaaahhh, Avro! :D

[Aussie Digger]

If the targets is within range of internal fuel then the B-2's and B-1b would be refueled.

Completely different mission require. A B-2 or B-1b used for inter-continental strike will require inflight refueling. However the same aircraft providing region bombing would not require inflight refueling at all.

Indonesia, Malaysia, PNG, Fiji etc can all be reached on internal fuel.

To strike indonesia say 20 Super Hornets with 4 tankers + wedgetail would be required. With 3/4 of the Hornets set up for strike. As this would use up most of the assets we would be able to perform one strike per day.

If even a single b-1b is used it can replace ALL the strike hornets, and reducing the number of escort hornets by half. So 1 b-1b, 3 Super hornets, 1 tanker and 1 wedgetail.

So a reduction from 25 aircraft to only 6 aircraft. If only 4-5 B-1b's were purchased we would have enough aircraft to sustain multiple strikes around the clock, with no aircraft aircraft.

We'd need over 200 Super Hornets and 20 tankers to sustain the same offensive force as 5 B-1b, 70 Super Hornets and 5 tankers.

Yes the B-1b would cost HEAPS to operate but the siginificantly reduced pressure on tankers and the fighter fleet would easily make up for the cost.

Buddy refueling? thats a joke, you then need twice as many hornets. Now over 40 aircraft are required to perform the same as 6 aircraft..

This was the idea behind Carlo Kopp's evolved F-111. It would reduce the tanking required and he clearly showed the advnatages of less tanking. It boosted nearly every other area once the strike force didn't need tanking.

The B-1b is a big F-111, it allows 4 F-111's worth of weapons to be dropped twice as far away. This isn't the main reason why i believe the B-1b is better than the evolved F-111. The main reason is the reduced risk, all upgrades are available off the shelf and perfectly flyable mothballed airframes are available. The US has already made B-1b's operational that were mothballed. Very little risk with this option.


Why would a B-2 or B-1B be refueled if a target is WITHIN range of one of these aircraft on "internal fuel"?

I think you might need to go back and read the White Paper RJM and find out exactly what Governments expects RAAF to provide in relation to it's strike capacity.

Suffice to say, intercontinental and "strategic" bombing capability are NOT outcomes RAAF are required to provide.

The SH as I said with JASSM-ER (which WILL be acquired) can strike to a range of around 2000k's WITHOUT refuelling. This is more than far enough to meet Governments requirement and is very similar to what an unrefuelled F-111 can achieve, IIRC.

The buddy refuelling system carried by the SH is NOT a joke. Do some maths about just how much fuel an SH carrying 5x external drop tanks can carry. Suffice to say it's sufficient to allow the USN to operate NO other tanker aircraft...

Why would 20 strikers be required to strike Indonesia? What is the mission. What is the conflict about? The Super Hornet is going to be used as a "gap filler". It is NOT going to be the sole striker, just as F-111 is not now...

Once again there is no requirement for RAAF to perform a strategic or intercontintental (I presume you mean in the US/RUSSIA/CHINA context as Australian launched strike missions on Indonesia technically ARE "intercontinental) strikes. Talk of a B-1B is about as useful as suggesting a Tiger Moth should form the basis of RAAF's NACC...

[Tasman]

Will the 707 fleet be completely retired when the A330,s are operational? How much life is left in them?

The 707s will be retired when the A330s are operational. Apart from age I believe there is a problem with polution from their engines which is outside current acceptable standards.

Cheers

[sunderer]

And trust me they are just about stuffed.