This would take a bit of advanced knowledge and pre-planning, but imagine the potential <ahem> impact, of a sub-launched SAM that is sized to fit a 21" torpedoe tube, and accept datalink/CEC targeting data from an E-7. If hostile MPA and/or AEW aircraft were operating over water that the sub could transit into, or near coastlines that a sub could be lurking in...
That would be a pretty terrifying weapon for ISR aircraft crews if it worked. Even the largest SM6 variant (Blk IB) is a 21" weapon (although perhaps it would need to be containerised for sub launch, which could be prohibitive?). You could theoretically impose A2/AD effects on enemy ISR aircraft over some pretty vast tracts of water. Interesting idea...
I don't think that it would have to be a large missile. Even something like an ESSM would do the job. The sub would have to get within 20 - 25 nm, but the closer the better because it gives the target less time to react. Even if the missile misses, it will force the enemy to react to the threat, by forcing them to change their operating methods. Do they restrict their ISR & AEW&C activities in the area or do they deploy ASW assets to protect their ISR & AEW&C assets? Or do they protect only a limited number of assets? Or don't pull ASW assets to protect any at all, relying on onboard decoys and other measures?
As true as that is, I am more of a sadist. Imagine implementing this concept via SM6 Blk IB with VLS equipped SSNs (VPM) or Ohio Class SSGNs and their vast VLS arrays. Given SM6's secondary role as an AShM, you could theoretically have one or more subs pop up and wreak havoc on everything above water within ~200nm+.
Sadism is frowned upon by the gentleman of the RAAF. They're more into Officers Mess piano burning, which is a time honoured tradition dating back to the battlefields of WW1 and inherited from the RAF.
Nice find. That's quite interesting indeed and has significant potential. Since it fits ok n a King Air in its development stage means that it's not overly large. I noted that they mentioned that it has the capability of stand off scanning, so any potential target wouldn't be aware of its detection until incoming rounds arrived on target.Being a quiet person that is not a defense pro so rarely posts, but have seen this article in the RAAF magazine and has got me wondering what this capability will do and what exactly will there missions will be?
page 4 of the article:- Investigating full spectrum of high-tech scanningCurrent Edition : Air Force News Paper : Department of Defence
Department of Defence Air Force News Paper.www.defence.gov.au
Everyone's thought's?
After having read through the link a few thoughts came to mind.Being a quiet person that is not a defense pro so rarely posts, but have seen this article in the RAAF magazine and has got me wondering what this capability will do and what exactly will there missions will be?
page 4 of the article:- Investigating full spectrum of high-tech scanningCurrent Edition : Air Force News Paper : Department of Defence
Department of Defence Air Force News Paper.
Everyone's thought's?
Yes, BAE completed the LIFCAP for the last of our Hawk 127s last year. The work brought them up to Hawk 128 standard (RAF Hawk T.2) except that the upgraded RAAF aircraft retain the ability to carry (and use?) live weapons which was no longer required by the RAF.
www.australiandefence.com.au
www.livefistdefence.com
My view is that the T-7A would be the front runner because of its capabilities and the fact it's designed with training for the F-35 in mind. It also has the ability to mimic other aircraft types flight characteristics and that would appeal to the RAAF. It's not that Boeing has a presence in Australia, but the capabilities that the platform will offer.
Yes it can be, because as it states they are wanting information. So the issue of an RFI will give them an understanding of what is available in the marketplace. It also tells vendors what the government is requiring in its new capability. The act of raising a RFI also helps the government to crystallize its requirements. After the responses are received, they will be analysed and may result in a further more refined RFI, or a RFT. Don't forget the 2033 would be the year of the completion of the project.
I have to disagree there, it can hurt to bring a program forward because you will have to rearrange your funding. Start Air 6002 early and another program will have to be put back. All that has happened so far is the RAAF has asked for Information on possible Platforms from Aviation Companies who would have been expecting something sooner or later anyway.
Not really. The first few years of a programme usually involve planning. Getting that planning started earlier can enable contract signing earlier which would in turn likely cause funding to be required sooner. OTOH the date of contract signing and/or start of production and delivery could be left alone.