Go Back   DefenceTalk Forum - Military & Defense Forums > Global Defense & Military > Air Force & Aviation

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures
Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence


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; This is a bit off the topic boys but is their any chance of any EF 18G kits being procured ...


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 17 votes, 4.06 average.
Old August 7th, 2007   #61
Senior Member
Brigadier General
Ozzy Blizzard's Avatar
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,842
Threads:
This is a bit off the topic boys but is their any chance of any EF 18G kits being procured for the SH fleet? It would give the RAAF a potent EW capability for a relitively low price without requireing new platforms. perhaps when the last squadrons of F35A's are procured 12 or so super bugs could be retaeined in an fast FAC/EW/Tanking role???? Is this feasible in monetary or crewing terms???
Ozzy Blizzard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 7th, 2007   #62
Aussie Digger
Guest
No Avatar
Posts: n/a
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozzy Blizzard View Post
This is a bit off the topic boys but is their any chance of any EF 18G kits being procured for the SH fleet? It would give the RAAF a potent EW capability for a relitively low price without requireing new platforms. perhaps when the last squadrons of F35A's are procured 12 or so super bugs could be retaeined in an fast FAC/EW/Tanking role???? Is this feasible in monetary or crewing terms???
Would RAAF require the EA-18G level of capability with an "all stealth" air combat force?

I think the aircraft would be better off sold, whilst still maintaining a reasonably high level of operational utility and airframe life.

The F-35 with it's AESA radar and advanced internal EWSP system should provide a reasonable EA capability anyway... Certainly better than RAAF's current capability.
  Reply With Quote
Old August 7th, 2007   #63
Defense Enthusiast
Sergeant
No Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posts: 262
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magoo View Post
The T-6B will likely be offered, as will the PC-21, EMB-314, M-346 and maybe the Korean KT-1, but it will likely be just one element of a total overall solution encompassing a primary training platform, the advanced training aircraft, support, and local industry involvement.
Ahh ok. So is the RAAF looking to replace the PC-9 and find a new lead in trainer to release the Hawks? Or are they looking to replace both roles with a single type? Bear with me if Im behind sorry!
abramsteve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 7th, 2007   #64
Defense Professional / Analyst
Captain
Magoo's Avatar
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 665
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by abramsteve View Post
Ahh ok. So is the RAAF looking to replace the PC-9 and find a new lead in trainer to release the Hawks? Or are they looking to replace both roles with a single type? Bear with me if Im behind sorry!
Nup. It'll be a primary/basic trainer to replace the BAE Flying College's CT-4s at Tamworth, and an advanced trainer to replace the PC-9, as well as simulators, computer-based training, coursewear etc.

The Hawks are lead-in fighter trainers and have a lot of life left in them yet.

Cheers

Magoo
________________
Lead, follow, or get out of the way!
Magoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 7th, 2007   #65
Defense Professional / Analyst
Master Sergeant
barra's Avatar
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 333
Threads:
Growlers

Obviously EW is one area that any air force takes very seriously these days. Converting some of the Super Hornets to EA-18G's, once the F-35's start arriving in numbers, and acquiring HARM's would be two steps I would like to see the RAAF take. (well I can dream can't I?) With Growlers, HARM shooters and PGM armed strikers the RAAF would be well placed to operate with our allies and also generate our own strike packages if required.

This sites news section had an article on the JSF's planned EW capability some months ago. Can't remember exactly but the planned ALR system had an automatic engagement capability of any threats detected. Not just identifying the threat but also locate, classify and engage in order of lethality to the ownship. Certainly a big step up from the classic hornets.

Hooroo
barra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 8th, 2007   #66
Defense Enthusiast
Sergeant
No Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posts: 262
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magoo View Post
Nup. It'll be a primary/basic trainer to replace the BAE Flying College's CT-4s at Tamworth, and an advanced trainer to replace the PC-9, as well as simulators, computer-based training, coursewear etc.

The Hawks are lead-in fighter trainers and have a lot of life left in them yet.

Cheers

Magoo
Cheers for the info.
abramsteve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 9th, 2007   #67
Potstirrer
General
Todjaeger's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: not in New England anymore...
Posts: 3,841
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by AGRA View Post
Not at all. Armament isn't the main issue but surviability. The PC-9/A used by FACDU is why FACDU is just a develpment unit and not deployable. The aircraft is completely unsafe for combat operations. The aircrew sit ontop of an oxygen bottle! A FAC aircraft based on a trainer like the AT-6B and the Super Tucano ALX have to be completely redesigned. The PC-21 doesn't have this redesign and would be as much a death trap in combat operations as the PC-9.



The Hawk would be an excellent FAC platform but you would have to integrate a FLIR pod onto it. The AT-6B will come with a FLIR and purpose designed for FAC.
Okay, I admit I'm a little confused. I had thought that the T-6 trainer from Raytheon (Beech) was a US version of the Pilatus PC-9, with a slightly different cockpit layout. IIRC it uses the PC-7 layout? Were there specific parts of the US version that eliminated some of the design characteristics that would make it unsuitable for FAC?

Also, is it expected that the BAE Flying College will no longer be conducting basic/primary flight training for the ADF/RAAF? From what I understood of the scheme, it seemed a good one, but there could be performance or cost issues that I'm not aware of.

Incidentally regarding flight training. I understand that Qantas, which currently conducts in-house flight training for their own pilots, will be expanding their flight training capabilities. I believe this is because Qantas has identified a need for trained pilots in the region and is setting up to expand into the flight training business as well. Do people think that the ADF might enter into an agreement with Qantas whereby Qantas will conduct some of the flight training for the ADF? If so, are there any particular sectors where this is likely? I would imagine that Qantas could do the multi-engine/transport training, particularly for aircraft based off the A330 and B737 but I'm not sure if it might cover single engine or rotary wing training as well.

-Cheers
________________
Beware of Mr. Grumpy...
Todjaeger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 9th, 2007   #68
Senior Member
Major
harryriedl's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: london
Posts: 1,018
Threads:
Has the RAAF shone any interest in METEOR for the F35 as it being integrated for the UK and could give the RAAF an advantage over likely adversaries i know the RAAF is a very US centric force but it has adopted ASRAM so could METEOR have a chance
harryriedl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 10th, 2007   #69
Defense Professional / Analyst
Master Sergeant
barra's Avatar
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 333
Threads:
The United States is our biggest and most important allie, so it is only natural that we buy equipment that is interoperable with the US forces. That doesn't mean that we don't look elsewhere though.

The charge that Australia only buys from the US doesn't hold much weight anymore with recent purchases like AWD and LHD from Spain as well as the Tiger ARH, MRH-90 and KC-30B Tankers all from European companies.

Australia has had instances in the past were weapon suppliers have withdrawn support because they disagreed with our involvement in certain conflicts. It is well documented that Sweden refused to support the Carl Gustav weapons the army was using because they were against the Vietnam war. I also believe the reason RAAF Mirages were never deployed to Vietnam was mainly because of French opposition. The French also made sure we bought Squirrel choppers in the 80's by withholding Mirage spares until a deal was done. Wonderfull allies!!!

AFAIK the US has never withdrawn support of any weapons systems we have bought off them. Mainly because whenever they go to war we are usually not to far behind I suppose.

Hooroo
barra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 10th, 2007   #70
Defense Professional / Analyst
Master Sergeant
AGRA's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 338
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Todjaeger View Post
Okay, I admit I'm a little confused. I had thought that the T-6 trainer from Raytheon (Beech) was a US version of the Pilatus PC-9, with a slightly different cockpit layout. IIRC it uses the PC-7 layout? Were there specific parts of the US version that eliminated some of the design characteristics that would make it unsuitable for FAC?
The T-6A was a significant redesign of the PC-9. Using a new cockpit - nothing to do with the PC-7. It also has an onboard oxygen generation system not the bottles. The T-6B adds a digital flight control system. The AT-6B is a further redesign adding armour, weapons, FLIR, removable rear ejection seat. Man all this info is available on the net, even try Wikipedia or go to the Beechcraft webpage and read the product brochures...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Todjaeger View Post
Also, is it expected that the BAE Flying College will no longer be conducting basic/primary flight training for the ADF/RAAF? From what I understood of the scheme, it seemed a good one, but there could be performance or cost issues that I'm not aware of.
Yes, no, no. The ADF wants to train its pilots as warfighters from before day 1. The idea that flying was flying and warfighting something different is gone. Having civilian instructors, teaching in a relaxed campus approach is out with the old biggles attitude. There will be significant commercial provision of support for the new ADF Aircrew Training System (Air 5428 and Air 9000/7) but not civil aircraft ownership or civil flight instructors.
AGRA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 10th, 2007   #71
Defense Professional / Analyst
Master Sergeant
AGRA's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 338
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by harryriedl View Post
Has the RAAF shone any interest in METEOR for the F35 as it being integrated for the UK and could give the RAAF an advantage over likely adversaries i know the RAAF is a very US centric force but it has adopted ASRAM so could METEOR have a chance
Meteors old hat Ė we will be shooting AIM-162F AMRAAM-ER from our F-35sÖ PS ASRAAM probably wonít be on the F-35A because itís only being integrated on F-35B. And itís not about my/your/there country right or wrong itís about a VFM lethal solution for the air combat force. In which case AIM-9X on an F-35A in WVR will be far superior to any potential adversary.
AGRA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 10th, 2007   #72
Senior Member
Major
harryriedl's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: london
Posts: 1,018
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by AGRA View Post
Meteors old hat Ė we will be shooting AIM-162F AMRAAM-ER from our F-35sÖ PS ASRAAM probably wonít be on the F-35A because itís only being integrated on F-35B. And itís not about my/your/there country right or wrong itís about a VFM lethal solution for the air combat force. In which case AIM-9X on an F-35A in WVR will be far superior to any potential adversary.
the stressing should be the same so i imagine that anything integrated on one the variants of the F35 it should be compatible with the rest of the fleet
harryriedl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 10th, 2007   #73
Defense Professional / Analyst
Master Sergeant
AGRA's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 338
Threads:
Nope. F-35B has a different weapons bay to both F-35A and F-35C.
AGRA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 12th, 2007   #74
Senior Member
Major
harryriedl's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: london
Posts: 1,018
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by AGRA View Post
Nope. F-35B has a different weapons bay to both F-35A and F-35C.
But the pylons mounted in the bays are the same just stressed for 1000 pound bombs rather 2000 pound bombs and is smaller dimensions compared with F35C and F35A and for the testing of METEOR AND ASRAAM one plane should be able to integrated the missiles for the other types
harryriedl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 12th, 2007   #75
Defense Professional / Analyst
Master Sergeant
AGRA's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 338
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by harryriedl View Post
But the pylons mounted in the bays are the same just stressed for 1000 pound bombs rather 2000 pound bombs and is smaller dimensions compared with F35C and F35A and for the testing of METEOR AND ASRAAM one plane should be able to integrated the missiles for the other types
Yeah youíd think so but unfortunately no. Certification for carriage on the F-35B will not provide certification for the F-35A/F-35C. Certainly integration on the F-35B will enable systems integration on the other two variants but you will still have to do another carry and launch certification campaign. PS this isnít an Ďopinioní of mine but a fact. So donít come back at me send your email to the JSF PO or Lockheed MartinÖ
AGRA is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:09 PM.