Royal Australian Air Force [RAAF] News, Discussions and Updates

SpazSinbad

Active Member
It all depends on what went wrong, Fault could lay anywhere between the RAAF and Boeing. If RAAF I do see it being hard to get another Growler without the USN assisting however if Boeings fault then should be covered under warranty in which case they likely to just give us a new bird and part this one out. Wouldnt want to fix this one with out a serious going over, Might be cheaper actually salvaging what they can off this bird, Fitting them to one of the wired super hornets and ordering a new SH.
What is this mythical 'under warranty' idea come from? Please explain.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Vonnoobie mentioned it as a possibility but likely there is no warranty even though the jet is likely less than a year old. Aviation News reported deliveries to Australia started in 2017.
 

Rob c

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I'm no repair expert however - to me - this looks like expensive repair especially for toasted need to be replace avionics. Good airframe back home for learning how to repair damaged airframes I guess: https://i.imgur.com/lhKnsdN.png We'll find out in due course with some detail I hope about what went wrong etc.

If there was any heat
I'm no repair expert however - to me - this looks like expensive repair especially for toasted need to be replace avionics. Good airframe back home for learning how to repair damaged airframes I guess: https://i.imgur.com/lhKnsdN.png We'll find out in due course with some detail I hope about what went wrong etc.

It will be the structure that is the big problem as anything that has been that has been heated much above 250 C will have started to anneal (soften ) and lose strength, so that anything that shows signs of heat or smoke will need to be replaced which would appear to be most of the right hand side of the fuselage and wing. the heat may have gone under the fuselage and affected the left side as well. The big problem will be figuring out what has suffered heat damage as there may not necessarily be any physical signs. Heat damage could easily mean that the structure of this aircraft is a right off. I would suggest that there will need to be a huge amount of testing and investigation of the structure just to figure out if it is indeed reparable or not. I would stress that it does not require much heat to stuff an aluminium aircraft structure.
 
Last edited:

hauritz

Well-Known Member
They airforce has had a pretty good run with its fast jets. The last accident of any real note that I can remember was a wheels up landing by an F-111 back in 2006.


That aircraft was effectively written off ... but it was an old aircraft by then. Another F-111 was lost in 1999 ... unfortunately resulting in the loss of the crew.

The last Hornet lost in an accident was back in 1994. Actually that was a bad year ... we lost two of them with the pilots dying in those accidents.
 

SpazSinbad

Active Member
Yes the RAAF Hornets have a had an excellent record after the four early losses - one apparently caused by the pilot removing his oxygen mask whilst climbing to high altitude - then he succumbed to lack of oxygen & crashed in parts unknown - not found for some time. I mention this due to the ongoing oxygen/OBOGS issues with all US aircraft (mostly). Anyhow one would expect USNInews to be better informed - they prolly are but only from the USN perspective ('pilot did not eject' for example). This 'accident investigation monitoring' is like a no-brainer for all Growler operators - OK there are only two then. :)

Navy Monitoring Results of Australian EA-18G Growler Fire Investigation - USNI News 29 Jan 2017
“...The pilot was able to eject from the aircraft, and no injuries were reported.... The U.S. Navy is watching the Red Flag incident with interest,” Cmdr. Ron Flanders, public affairs officer for the Commander of Naval Air Forces told USNI News. “Our Growler operations continue. When the Australians complete their investigation, we’ll take a look at the findings and assess if any actions are necessary.”..."
From my NavAv perspective 'trailing the hook through the dirt' is a big nono. However I acknowledge the pilot had a lot of gas and plenty of time for others to simulate an arrest whilst he practiced one or twice (without hook down) I believe. Think about it. Dragging hook point on ground with the possibility also of catching the concrete lip of the runway beginning - for hook/hook point to fail - is not so good. However he did what he was told and it was a great success. BZ to the young bloke.

 
Last edited:

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
Depends if they still want to keep the two squadrons of Super Hornets. If they want to keep them then complete squadrons would be ideal unless they fold them into a single larger squadron and assign the left over to training (Stepping stone for the F-35?).
 

Tasman

Ship Watcher
Verified Defense Pro
Depends if they still want to keep the two squadrons of Super Hornets. If they want to keep them then complete squadrons would be ideal unless they fold them into a single larger squadron and assign the left over to training (Stepping stone for the F-35?).
Haven't the SHs already been merged into one enlarged squadron (1 Squadron) with the Growlers assigned to 6 Squadron?

Tas
 

pgclift

Member
Vonnoobie mentioned it as a possibility but likely there is no warranty even though the jet is likely less than a year old. Aviation News reported deliveries to Australia started in 2017.
In the strict sense of the word, then perhaps the term warranty may not be correct. However, if the investigation identifies that a fault was caused in the manufacturing process or by 3rd sub-contractor parts supplier then I believe there would be at least the possibility of some redress either directly from Boeing or via the courts.

The example I have in mind is the QF 32 incident of 4 November 2010. If you recall and according to ATSB Report AO 2010-089 the No.2 Rolls Royce Trent 900 engine on that flight suffered an uncontained engine rotor failure. Sorry can’t yet post links.

The report goes on to say that the cause of the failure was determined to be a fatigue crack in an oil feed line that resulted in an internal oil fire.

Even though A380’s powered by Rolls Royce engines were a mature operating platform Qantas commenced legal action in the Federal Court for damages under the Trade Practices Act. Initially Rolls Royce were going to contest the case but as events transpired, according to the Qantas Media Release of 22 June 2011, an out of court settlement between the parties was reached whereby Rolls Royce had agreed to compensate Qantas GBP 56 million or AUD 96 million.

I have not been able to find a split up of that amount into the engine replacement and the income lost by Qantas when it grounded their A380 fleet pending identification of the fault.

I don’t know if this precedent from commercial aviation is directly relatable to the military field but (subject to my caveats regarding the origins of the fault in the first paragraph) I would find it strange that any military supplier could be excused from liability arising from a product fault.
 

Rob c

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
The jurno who said that the pilot was able to eject should look at the photo's as the canopy is still on the aircraft. Probably miss heard that the pilot managed to egress from the aircraft.
 

SpazSinbad

Active Member
In the strict sense of the word, then perhaps the term warranty may not be correct. However, if the investigation identifies that a fault was caused in the manufacturing process or by 3rd sub-contractor parts supplier then I believe there would be at least the possibility of some redress either directly from Boeing or via the courts ..... I don’t know if this precedent from commercial aviation is directly relatable to the military field but (subject to my caveats regarding the origins of the fault in the first paragraph) I would find it strange that any military supplier could be excused from liability arising from a product fault.
For military aircraft AFAIK this is not the case. The miljet is tested by manufacturer then by air arm then accepted for service if no faults found. YES, before service acceptance if fault found then it is up to the various suppier entities to fix it before further testing and ultimate acceptance. After that the service wears cost of faults. IF anyone knows any difference to this broad view of military jet use then please explain. Thanks.
 

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
The jurno who said that the pilot was able to eject should look at the photo's as the canopy is still on the aircraft. Probably miss heard that the pilot managed to egress from the aircraft.
Pictures show damage to crashed RAAF jet EA-18G Growler at Nellis Air Force Base Nevada

Never let the truth get in the way of a good headline. I love the ‘crash’ comment and the 300m price tag (they did clarify that later in the item by noting that was whole of life cost ..... but it is sill aimed at a beat up).

The airframe looks to have suffered extensive damage so it at be a scrap for spares job as some have suggested..... but we will have to wait for the official advice.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Yes the RAAF Hornets have a had an excellent record after the four early losses - one apparently caused by the pilot removing his oxygen mask whilst climbing to high altitude - then he succumbed to lack of oxygen & crashed in parts unknown - not found for some time. I mention this due to the ongoing oxygen/OBOGS issues with all US aircraft (mostly). Anyhow one would expect USNInews to be better informed - they prolly are but only from the USN perspective ('pilot did not eject' for example). This 'accident investigation monitoring' is like a no-brainer for all Growler operators - OK there are only two then. :)

Navy Monitoring Results of Australian EA-18G Growler Fire Investigation - USNI News 29 Jan 2017

From my NavAv perspective 'trailing the hook through the dirt' is a big nono. However I acknowledge the pilot had a lot of gas and plenty of time for others to simulate an arrest whilst he practiced one or twice (without hook down) I believe. Think about it. Dragging hook point on ground with the possibility also of catching the concrete lip of the runway beginning - for hook/hook point to fail - is not so good. However he did what he was told and it was a great success. BZ to the young bloke.


Quick question, do non- USN users actually utilize the tail hook. The only reason I can imagine why the RAAF would is if they train to operate from USN CVNs when they are in the neighbourhood.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Quick question, do non- USN users actually utilize the tail hook. The only reason I can imagine why the RAAF would is if they train to operate from USN CVNs when they are in the neighbourhood.
Yep the tailhook has been utilised on occasion, such as the RAAF F-111 belly in 2007 - see video posted by hauritz a couple of posts above. The RNZAF utilised the tailhooks on the old A-4Ks more than once.
 

south

Well-Known Member
Yep the tailhook has been utilised on occasion, such as the RAAF F-111 belly in 2007 - see video posted by hauritz a couple of posts above. The RNZAF utilised the tailhooks on the old A-4Ks more than once.
There are a raft of emergencies where using the hook to take the cable is the preferred option. An example would be a nose wheel steering failure. It is used quite regularly.. most military bases around the world have cables for such emergencies as do many fighter types including Typhoon, F15, F16 and F22...
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
So, was there some kind of arrestor cable setup for the tailhook? I couldn't tell from the video. I have always thought the additional strength of naval airframes was an advantage for less than ideal landing strips in Canada's north but am not aware if the RCAF employs arrestor cables up north. In a fantasy scenario maybe the RCAF should get F-35Cs instead of F-35As.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
There are a raft of emergencies where using the hook to take the cable is the preferred option. An example would be a nose wheel steering failure. It is used quite regularly.. most military bases around the world have cables for such emergencies as do many fighter types including Typhoon, F15, F16 and F22...

Ok, thanks. This answers my earlier post.:)
 

SpazSinbad

Active Member
So, was there some kind of arrestor cable setup for the tailhook? I couldn't tell from the video. I have always thought the additional strength of naval airframes was an advantage for less than ideal landing strips in Canada's north but am not aware if the RCAF employs arrestor cables up north. In a fantasy scenario maybe the RCAF should get F-35Cs instead of F-35As.
Nellis AFB has two parallel runways with BAK-12 Arrestor Gear at each end. These are termed Short & Long Field depending on direction of use. Usually landing aircraft will aim to use the short field arrestor gear whilst aircraft taking off would use the long field gear. Also aircraft landing may have brake or other problems that might require a long field arrest.

A lot of modern fighter aircraft have a hook - not just Naval Aircraft. The CRAB aircraft usually have what is termed an 'Emergency Hook' and it is less robust than a carrier aircraft hook (designed for regular carrier use). The F-35A has such an 'emergency hook' which IIRC currently has a problem in that it has been found to less robust but still OK to use that one time. This hook is on a strap much like that found at the back end of an F-16 whilst these hooks are out of sight, housed in the under rear fuselage. Usually they are also used as a restraint during an aircraft engine run. IF used to catch a wire then they need to be thoroughly inspected and replaced if necessary. Therefore world wide one will see short/long field arrestor gear everywhere.

The first F-35A AA-1 was a one of heavyweight example not replicated due to 'weight control' but it was always slated to be destroyed in Live Fire Testing. One of the first tests it carried out was to go to the desert airfield to test the brakes and emergency arrestor hook. There are portable arrestor gear setups also for use on roads or small airfields.

Some old military aircraft / civilian aircraft have trouble taxiing OVER or landing on BAK-9/12 arrestor gear so a version that allows the wire (with the rubber grommets that support this wire above the runway) to be out of sight below the runway is the BAK-14. ATC can raise this wire on request. Advice in NATOPS for example is to lower the hook at least 1,000 yards before the wire so that there is ample time for the hook to lower fully (and not too much time dragging on the tarmac).
 
Last edited:

aussienscale

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
So, was there some kind of arrestor cable setup for the tailhook? I couldn't tell from the video. I have always thought the additional strength of naval airframes was an advantage for less than ideal landing strips in Canada's north but am not aware if the RCAF employs arrestor cables up north. In a fantasy scenario maybe the RCAF should get F-35Cs instead of F-35As.
The F-35A also has an emergency tailhook too, as do the other aircraft mentioned, F-16 etc etc

The F-35A has started tailhook testing at Edwards AFB

Cheers
 

Takao

The Bunker Group
For military aircraft AFAIK this is not the case. The miljet is tested by manufacturer then by air arm then accepted for service if no faults found. YES, before service acceptance if fault found then it is up to the various suppier entities to fix it before further testing and ultimate acceptance. After that the service wears cost of faults. IF anyone knows any difference to this broad view of military jet use then please explain. Thanks.
I know (having worked on both) of two airframes that had warranty periods. Depending on the part it was 3 / 6 / 12 months and a specific hour limit (think 3 yr / 10 000km warranty for cars). On a couple of occasions there was a very short period between expiry and U/S that meant late hours to pull the part off and package it up. I even know of at least one part that was replaced 'under warranty' despite being years out.
 
Top