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

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
The Hawks were a 20 year old design when the RAAF got them, The P8 is based on a design that has evolved from the original B737 of the 1960's. How old the basic airframe design is, is overshadowed by what is fitted to and into that that basic airframe.
The thing about the T-7A is that it is a generation ahead of the TA-50. It's designed from the get go for the training of 5G aircrew and it could be difficult to re-engineer an older airframe to achieve similar aerodynamic capabilities to the T-7A. Don't forget the T-7A Redtail is designed to simulate inflight handling characteristics of other aircraft.
 

Rob c

Well-Known Member
The thing about the T-7A is that it is a generation ahead of the TA-50. It's designed from the get go for the training of 5G aircrew and it could be difficult to re-engineer an older airframe to achieve similar aerodynamic capabilities to the T-7A. Don't forget the T-7A Redtail is designed to simulate inflight handling characteristics of other aircraft.
With modern fly by wire or later fibre systems, the handling of an aircraft can be set up to what is the desired characteristics of the platform. this ability has been around for a significant period of time and is how an aircraft's handling is optimised to make best use of the aircraft's power and aerodynamic limits.
 

John Newman

The Bunker Group
The Hawks were a 20 year old design when the RAAF got them, The P8 is based on a design that has evolved from the original B737 of the 1960's. How old the basic airframe design is, is overshadowed by what is fitted to and into that that basic airframe.
Yes and no, I don’t think it is as simple or black and white as you suggest.

The original Hawk T1 design goes back to the early/mid 1970s, then there was the 100 series, followed by the 120 series (of which the RAAF 127 aircraft are developed from).

From what I understand there were very significant airframe changes/modifications from T1 to 127, they may look very similar externally, but big differences internally.

Equally I’d imagine that a B737 airframe of today is a very different animal to the original B737, the P-8A airframe is different compared to a commercial B737-800NG airframe.

So looking at a 20 yr old T-50 airframe design vs today’s T-7A airframe, I don’t think it’s just the avionics.

Time and technology marches on, even if it’s just simply better manufacturing techniques, and/or taking into account of future ‘tech’ the airframe will be fitted with.

I’m not slagging the T-50, simply pointing out that a 20 year younger airframe design may well be better today as the basis for a trainer that will likely serve up to the 2050s and potentially beyond too.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
The Hawk 127s were delivered with the same Cockpit layout as the classic Hornets, the RAAF may be looking to upgrade to a Trainer with something akin to the F-35A and the baseline Hawk design is now approaching its 50th Birthday.
The 50th birthday of the baseline design has been & gone. The RAF selected the Hawker Siddeley HS.1182 as its future trainer in 1971. The 50th anniversary of the purchase contract will be next month.
 

Meriv90

Active Member
I would agree with any other type of plane except of a trainer.

A trainer is a part of a know how system with an human component stronger than the other cases.

It isn't only the air frame , it is the whole teaching system, the training syllabus, simulators etc... etc....

Obviously the T-7A will develop it in the future. Depends on the urgency.

But I'm biased because of our M-346 that I believe together with the T-50, right now in this moment, probably offers a more complete solution than a prototype that still needs to be inducted. Simple because it had time to develop its teaching methods.

Or sending the pilots to the US to fly on T-38s wouldn't have any sense.
 

John Newman

The Bunker Group
I would agree with any other type of plane except of a trainer.

A trainer is a part of a know how system with an human component stronger than the other cases.

It isn't only the air frame , it is the whole teaching system, the training syllabus, simulators etc... etc....

Obviously the T-7A will develop it in the future. Depends on the urgency.

But I'm biased because of our M-346 that I believe together with the T-50, right now in this moment, probably offers a more complete solution than a prototype that still needs to be inducted. Simple because it had time to develop its teaching methods.

Or sending the pilots to the US to fly on T-38s wouldn't have any sense.
T-38? Well that is a joke isn’t it?

The Hawk 127 fleet is not going to disappear over night, it will remain in service for many years to come.

What will replace it is still very much an open book, nothing in or out at this early stage.

But I do struggle to see the RAAF adopting a Euro solution. Most of our Euro procurements have left a bad taste in the mouth.

Tiger ARH (being replaced by AH-64E), MRH-90 (being replaced by UH-60M and more MH-60R), C-27J (reduced roll and won’t perform its original task), the KC-30A was a bit of a problem child early on, but all good now.

Yes there are some exceptions, PC-21 (that replaced PC-9A), and EC-135 (which is basically a light commercial utility helicopter).

My gut tells me we’ll lean towards the US solution.

Just my opinion of course too.
 

Gryphinator

Active Member

John Newman

The Bunker Group
There’s a bit of a ‘smoke and mirrors’ aspect to this announcement:


The $1.5b investment is less about extending the service life for another 10 years (until 2031), what it’s more about is ensuring that the aircraft operates to what would have been a normal expected 30 year service life in the first place.

Anyway, it’s a pretty cheap investment to keep the 33 aircraft fleet relevant for the coming decade, also allows potential replacements to be more mature for when the time arrives.
 

DDG38

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Check out this legend :
"RAAF Base Darwin was honoured to host a visit from FLTLT (ret’d) Brian Winspear, AM on 18 February 2022. At 101 years young, Mr Winspear is one of the last surviving WWII veterans who defended Darwin and Australia during the Bombing of Darwin campaign. Mr Winspear travelled to Darwin to commemorate the 80th Anniversary of the Bombing of Darwin on 19 February 2022." Image Source : ADF Image Library
20220218raaf8161446_260.jpg
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Check out this legend :
"RAAF Base Darwin was honoured to host a visit from FLTLT (ret’d) Brian Winspear, AM on 18 February 2022. At 101 years young, Mr Winspear is one of the last surviving WWII veterans who defended Darwin and Australia during the Bombing of Darwin campaign. Mr Winspear travelled to Darwin to commemorate the 80th Anniversary of the Bombing of Darwin on 19 February 2022." Image Source : ADF Image Library
View attachment 48932
Well done that man.
 

hauritz

Well-Known Member
Check out this legend :
"RAAF Base Darwin was honoured to host a visit from FLTLT (ret’d) Brian Winspear, AM on 18 February 2022. At 101 years young, Mr Winspear is one of the last surviving WWII veterans who defended Darwin and Australia during the Bombing of Darwin campaign. Mr Winspear travelled to Darwin to commemorate the 80th Anniversary of the Bombing of Darwin on 19 February 2022." Image Source : ADF Image Library
View attachment 48932
I bet he wished they had a squadron of F-35s back then. According to Wiki they had 31 aircraft to defend against 242 Japanese fighters and bombers as well as a good chunk of the Japanese navy.
 

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I bet he wished they had a squadron of F-35s back then. According to Wiki they had 31 aircraft to defend against 242 Japanese fighters and bombers as well as a good chunk of the Japanese navy.
On the 19th Feb 1942 they had 14 Wirraways, 4 of which were u/s in Darwin and 10 were dispersed to Batchelor 72kms South.
There were also a flight(9) USAAC P 41 Kittyhawks which were enroute to Kupang (Timor) but were turned back because of bad weather at their destination. They arrived over RAAF Darwin and were on finals approach just as the attack began and all were shot down but not before downing several Japanese aircraft.
So, a total of 19 airworthy machines to counter 188 Japanese planes during the first raid.
The second raid commenced 2 hours after the first (midday) and the 54 twin engine bombers (based in Ambon and Timor) were unopposed.
 

Boagrius

Well-Known Member
I believe the RAAF has rather categorically rejected this claim.
I reject criticisms made in The Australian article ‘Defence revises down planned availability of the F-35A jet fleet’. The criticisms contained are completely unfounded.

The Royal Australian Air Force has revised the expected flying hours based on our maturing understanding of the F-35A capability requirements and our expected build-up of the capability.

Forward estimate flying hours are based on training and capability requirements, not availability

I suspect Mr Layton may be regurgitating what he read in the paper?
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I believe the RAAF has rather categorically rejected this claim.



I suspect Mr Layton may be regurgitating what he read in the paper?
You are making the presumption that Layton can read words longer than one syllable. Let's hope the CAF included lots of pictures.
 

Pusser01

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Regarding AIR6502, does the German MEADS system offer any advantages over the Patriot system? Noting both use PAC-3 MSE missile, the only advantage I see is that MEADS offers a 360deg coverage. Obviously with MEADS not being in service yet this would be a concern for the RAAF. Out of interest does the SAMP-T system bring anything extra to the table Patriot or MEADS doesn't? Cheers.
 

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Regarding AIR6502, does the German MEADS system offer any advantages over the Patriot system? Noting both use PAC-3 MSE missile, the only advantage I see is that MEADS offers a 360deg coverage. Obviously with MEADS not being in service yet this would be a concern for the RAAF. Out of interest does the SAMP-T system bring anything extra to the table Patriot or MEADS doesn't? Cheers.
The latest variant of Patriot has a brand spanking new 360 degree radar, so there isn’t much benefit there.

SAMP-T seems to be a lower level AD designed system from all I have read. I’d be concerned if the mission it was chosen for, included Ballistic Missile Defence...

Personally I am encouraged by the integration of PAC-3 MSE missiles into the THAAD system…


The $25B funding bracket and aspirational BMD / anti-hypersonic missile capability seems more within it’s purview to be honest. With the ability to fire PAC-3 MSE from the same launch system, it seems we’d gain an overlapping AD / BMD capability from the one system…
 
Top