Central Region RFDS use Pilatus PC12 and PC24, both are designed for operations from quite basic strips.
Kingairs are reasonably capable of similar operations.
Royal Australian Air Force [RAAF] News, Discussions and Updates
Kingairs are reasonably capable of similar operations.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #9,402
Both the PC-12 and Kingair are prop aircraft so FOD is not really a concern AFAIK. The PC-24 is designed for STOL which has a pair of nacelle-mounted turbofans aft of and above the level of the wings, just before the T-tail. Part of the design of the wings and flaps, as well the location of the engine nacelles, was done deliberately to shield the turbofans from debris. A such, operating from rougher fields or strips would be possible and safer for the PC-24 than something like a fighter aircraft with jet engines mounted under the fuselage, or more importantly, low/under the fuselage air intakes.
Interesting article about the Pms upcoming trip to China and Defences concerns about the aircraft being hacked on the tarmac.
apple.news
Extract.
Anthony Albanese’s upcoming trip to Beijing has been thrown off course by security advice that he should avoid travelling in his RAAF jet because its systems could be hacked by Chinese spies.
It’s understood a number of options are being considered, including using one or more of the RAAF’s smaller jets, or flying the Prime Minister’s plane to a nearby country and using a different aircraft for the final leg into Beijing.
Mr Albanese’s primary aircraft for international trips is one of the air force’s seven KC-30A air-to-air refuellers that has been modified with VIP sleeping and working facilities, and a mix of business class and economy seats for staff and the media. It has advanced communication and navigation systems, and electronic self-protection capabilities to shield against surface-to-air missiles.
Multiple high-level sources said the security warnings had been issued. It was not yet clear how Mr Albanese would get to Beijing. The Prime Minister has said he will travel to China by the end of the year to restore bilateral ties at the invitation of Chinese President Xi Jinping.
He is yet to release his travel dates but late October or early November are likely, coinciding with the 50th anniversary of Gough Whitlam’s historic visit to China.
Defence declined to discuss the matter, citing operational security. “The KC-30A government transport and communication aircraft is one of a range of platforms Defence uses to provide a special purpose aircraft capability to government,” a spokeswoman said.
The concerns over the aircraft’s security on the tarmac in Beijing are a stark reminder that, while the government is determined to stabilise relations with China, the country remains a potential future adversary for Australia, and has high-level hacking capabilities.
Anthony Albanese hits security turbulence: VIP plane at risk in Beijing — The Australian
Plans for Anthony Albanese’s upcoming trip to Beijing have been thrown off course by security advice that he should not travel there on his RAAF jet because it could be hacked by Chinese spies.
apple.news
Extract.
Anthony Albanese’s upcoming trip to Beijing has been thrown off course by security advice that he should avoid travelling in his RAAF jet because its systems could be hacked by Chinese spies.
It’s understood a number of options are being considered, including using one or more of the RAAF’s smaller jets, or flying the Prime Minister’s plane to a nearby country and using a different aircraft for the final leg into Beijing.
Mr Albanese’s primary aircraft for international trips is one of the air force’s seven KC-30A air-to-air refuellers that has been modified with VIP sleeping and working facilities, and a mix of business class and economy seats for staff and the media. It has advanced communication and navigation systems, and electronic self-protection capabilities to shield against surface-to-air missiles.
Multiple high-level sources said the security warnings had been issued. It was not yet clear how Mr Albanese would get to Beijing. The Prime Minister has said he will travel to China by the end of the year to restore bilateral ties at the invitation of Chinese President Xi Jinping.
He is yet to release his travel dates but late October or early November are likely, coinciding with the 50th anniversary of Gough Whitlam’s historic visit to China.
Defence declined to discuss the matter, citing operational security. “The KC-30A government transport and communication aircraft is one of a range of platforms Defence uses to provide a special purpose aircraft capability to government,” a spokeswoman said.
The concerns over the aircraft’s security on the tarmac in Beijing are a stark reminder that, while the government is determined to stabilise relations with China, the country remains a potential future adversary for Australia, and has high-level hacking capabilities.
Could he borrow Kim Jong Un’s armoured train?Interesting article about the Pms upcoming trip to China and Defences concerns about the aircraft being hacked on the tarmac.
Anthony Albanese hits security turbulence: VIP plane at risk in Beijing — The Australian
Plans for Anthony Albanese’s upcoming trip to Beijing have been thrown off course by security advice that he should not travel there on his RAAF jet because it could be hacked by Chinese spies.
Extract.
Anthony Albanese’s upcoming trip to Beijing has been thrown off course by security advice that he should avoid travelling in his RAAF jet because its systems could be hacked by Chinese spies.
It’s understood a number of options are being considered, including using one or more of the RAAF’s smaller jets, or flying the Prime Minister’s plane to a nearby country and using a different aircraft for the final leg into Beijing.
Mr Albanese’s primary aircraft for international trips is one of the air force’s seven KC-30A air-to-air refuellers that has been modified with VIP sleeping and working facilities, and a mix of business class and economy seats for staff and the media. It has advanced communication and navigation systems, and electronic self-protection capabilities to shield against surface-to-air missiles.
Multiple high-level sources said the security warnings had been issued. It was not yet clear how Mr Albanese would get to Beijing. The Prime Minister has said he will travel to China by the end of the year to restore bilateral ties at the invitation of Chinese President Xi Jinping.
He is yet to release his travel dates but late October or early November are likely, coinciding with the 50th anniversary of Gough Whitlam’s historic visit to China.
Defence declined to discuss the matter, citing operational security. “The KC-30A government transport and communication aircraft is one of a range of platforms Defence uses to provide a special purpose aircraft capability to government,” a spokeswoman said.
The concerns over the aircraft’s security on the tarmac in Beijing are a stark reminder that, while the government is determined to stabilise relations with China, the country remains a potential future adversary for Australia, and has high-level hacking capabilities.
SwingShift
Member
Surely the US have already solved this one with Blinken’s June 2023 visit to Beijing. No reason their risk analysis and counter measures would be published, but one our Air Force could likely seek advice on, as divulging sensitive tech from these aircraft and their systems would also be damaging for our allies. Whilst the USA executive jets are not KC30’s, they similarly exhibit advanced comms and countermeasures, likely with significant crossover, for many US defence industry is the OEM.
Ah, but what listening equipment would he have hidden in it?
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #9,408
Replying here but this is more an RAAF than Army discussion.
One of the first things to keep in mind is that the Rapid Dragon system is a palletized ordnance delivery system deployable from both C-130 and C-17 aircraft and can be done using unmodified versions of these aircraft. AFAIK the air-launched cruise missiles used in testing to date have been versions of JASSM, which has some potentially significant implications with regards to GBAD. The base AGM-158A JASSM has a range of ~200 n miles, whilst the former JASSM-XR now the AGM-158B-2 has a range of ~1,000 n miles, also remember that the JASSM family of missiles are LO missiles, vs. the A/B/R/UGM-109 Tomahawk family of cruise missiles which are both larger physically, an older aerodynamic design and non-LO. What this means is that it is very possible for a cargo aircraft using Rapid Dragon could be launched from well outside the potential detection capabilities of a target, never mind be within reach of GBAD, and that the GBAD itself would be less likely to be able to detect and engage/intercept the inbound missiles. Also worth noting that a C-130 could release up to 12 JASSM, whilst a C-17 could release up to 45 at once. Strikes of this magnitude and carried out at such potential ranges (we are talking about ranges of ~3,400 n miles using C-17 and AGM-158B-2) could be utilized to target strategically important fixed infrastructure and from distances that should be largely safe not only from GBAD, but also interception of the launching aircraft by hostile air.
On a related note, the potential capabilities of the Rapid Dragon system, if fielded by the RAAF, are one of the reasons why I seriously question the thinking behind the RGM-109E purchase for use from Hobart-class DDG's.
In response to the Rapid Dragon question, the answer would depend on the specifics of the target and sortie, but in general the likely answer would be, "No."
One of the first things to keep in mind is that the Rapid Dragon system is a palletized ordnance delivery system deployable from both C-130 and C-17 aircraft and can be done using unmodified versions of these aircraft. AFAIK the air-launched cruise missiles used in testing to date have been versions of JASSM, which has some potentially significant implications with regards to GBAD. The base AGM-158A JASSM has a range of ~200 n miles, whilst the former JASSM-XR now the AGM-158B-2 has a range of ~1,000 n miles, also remember that the JASSM family of missiles are LO missiles, vs. the A/B/R/UGM-109 Tomahawk family of cruise missiles which are both larger physically, an older aerodynamic design and non-LO. What this means is that it is very possible for a cargo aircraft using Rapid Dragon could be launched from well outside the potential detection capabilities of a target, never mind be within reach of GBAD, and that the GBAD itself would be less likely to be able to detect and engage/intercept the inbound missiles. Also worth noting that a C-130 could release up to 12 JASSM, whilst a C-17 could release up to 45 at once. Strikes of this magnitude and carried out at such potential ranges (we are talking about ranges of ~3,400 n miles using C-17 and AGM-158B-2) could be utilized to target strategically important fixed infrastructure and from distances that should be largely safe not only from GBAD, but also interception of the launching aircraft by hostile air.
On a related note, the potential capabilities of the Rapid Dragon system, if fielded by the RAAF, are one of the reasons why I seriously question the thinking behind the RGM-109E purchase for use from Hobart-class DDG's.
Not sure what you’re saying here? One one hand no but you go on to put the reason what rapid radon sounds like a good idea?
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #9,410
The question being answered was whether or not Rapid Dragon, if used from a C-130 (or C-17 for that matter) would present the same risk or exposure to GBAD as attempting to fly in and land HIMARS, which could then be used to launch missiles at GBAD or other targets.
From what I have been able to gather about the Rapid Dragon palletized weapon delivery system is that the answer is, "No." Unless of course the users are being stupid. GBAD missile systems, if one is including systems like S-400, have a max range of ~400 km. This means that GBAD units might be within range of airfields or suitable landing strips where C-130 or C-17 airlifters could land to offload M142 HIMARS launchers, before the HIMARS could then be used to launch strikes against the GBAD or other units. Yes, I am aware that if PrSM is loaded, HIMARS might have even longer reach, but it is distinctly possible that suitable landing sites might not be available to get HIMARS onto the ground where that extra range could be used.
Rapid Dragon OTOH has been tested with JASSM and derivatives, as well as JDAM ordnance and is used as an airdrop/air-launch. Using the AGM-158B JASSM-ER, a C-130 or C-17 could release Rapid Dragon pallets up to ~925 km away from the intended target, well beyond the ~400 km range of something like S-400. If the AGM-158B-2 is loaded instead, then the reach jumps up to ~1,900 km.
Basically, using something like Rapid Dragon could enable airlifters to release standoff ordnance at significant ranges from potential GBAD threats, either as strategic strikes or if the ISR resources enable it, to delaminate GBAD itself. That sounds like a better system to use than to try and land land-based missile systems from aircraft, so that the land-based missiles could then be used to try and attack the GBAD systems.
The last bit I posted was in reference to the purchase of 200+ ship-launched RGM-109E Tomahawk missiles to provide the ADF with a long-range LACM capability using VLS cells aboard the Hobart-class DDG's. If the capability deemed important was for the ADF to acquire long-ranged strike capabilities, then Rapid Dragon sounds much more promising to me than fitting and older LACM design in the already too few VLS cells the RAN will have available for air defence aboard the principle air defence vessels for the RAN.
Last edited:
OldTex
Well-Known Member
Rapid Dragon starts to make sense if there are a large number of airlifters in the fleet. The other parts that need to be in place (other than the missiles) are the targetting systems, the air tasking processes plus the CONOPS and training to use Rapid Dragon effectively. At this stage the RAAF probably has 2 of those five elements.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #9,412
Currently the RAAF has 20 airlifters able to carry/release Rapid Dragon and this is set to grow to 28 as more C-130J are delivered to expand/replace the current fleet of C-130J's. Given that Rapid Dragon is palletized and does not require aircraft modification to be fitted or used, I would argue the RAAF could manage a sortie lasting a few hours.
Sufficient warstocks is of course potentially problematic, and AFAIK deliveries have either started this year for AGM-158B-2, or are set to commence next year. In this regard, I think AUD$1.3 bil. on AGM-158 variants would deliver a better capability than spending that coin on RGM-109E.
Targeting, with the possible exception of against fixed installations, remains a problem for the ADF. I still do not understand how/why leadership seems to feel that land-based and ship-based LACM are going to be effective, given the likely issues with targeting. However, if Rapid Dragon was used to launch AGM-158C LRASM, I suspect that the ADF could manage to gather adequate intel to target a concentration of hostile shipping.
I suspect that some of the work to make standoff ordnance release by existing RAAF aircraft possible could also be utilized to enable larger volume releases from airlifters. I also suspect that adding the flexibility to re-role an airlifter into essentially a strike platform for a specific mission, then have it go back to airlift would provide the ADF an overall capability boost. More so IMO than adding strike at the spend of air defence for a RAN warship, with a port visit required to change the loadout or reload.
OldTex
Well-Known Member
If the RAAF were required to conduct strike missions using Rapid Dragon, then it would be reasonable to assume that the overall situation is requiring the airlifters to be used in their tactical airlift role. So an increase in the number of tactical airlifters in the future would offer some spare capacity to be diverted to effectively a 'Hail Mary' task. One question that comes to mind is whether the C-27J can be used to deploy Rapid Dragon. The USAF hasn't tried it as they don't operate the Spartans anymore. As the Spartans are deemed to be unusable in contested airspace then being able to utilise Rapid Dragon from outside the opposition IADS envelope might be useful.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #9,414
Honestly I am not sure. The cargo area of a C-27J AFAIK has smaller dimensions overall than a C-130, but I have not been able to determine what the cargo bay length is. A C-130J can have two Rapid Dragon pallets loaded, each with six missiles, with the missiles being over 4 m themselves and I believe an overall pallet length of ~5.2 m. It might be possible to fit a single Rapid Dragon pallet aboard a C-27J, but I am not certain whether or not it would be worth Australia paying to develop and test this.
What might be worth developing, or funding the development of, is a way to use Rapid Dragon to rapidly deploy sea mines like the Stonefish. This could enable Australia to make it more difficult for a hostile force to operate in littoral waters that are too far for the RAN to exert pressure on, given competing requirements for RAN forces. Even the deployment of dummy sea mines could force an aggressor to spend an inordinate amount of time and resources to make sure sea lanes around a port or landing site are clear, which could slow an advance or otherwise occupy forces rather than have them available for use elsewhere.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Question, would the KC-390 offer any advantages over the C-130 other than speed wrt Red Dragon? Integration costs and a new support package for the KC-390 would likely be negatives I guess.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #9,416
Honestly not sure. I believe that the C-390 is an overall slightly larger aircraft and with a longer range for a given cargo weight. From cursory checking, it appears to have a longer cargo bay length, TBH though I question the figure I came across since it is so much longer than that of a C-130. The margin of difference is enough that I wonder if the measurements used for the different aircraft are dissimilar. More specifically if the C-130 measurement is from the forward bulkhead aft to where the ramp hinge is, whilst the C-390 measures from the bulkhead to were the ramp ends in the tail. Between that and whatever the floor strength might be, would likely determine how many pallets could be fitted, assuming someone could handle the development and integration.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
The C-390 is a much newer design that is a bigger, faster aircraft and would probably make a better Rapid Dragon platform in a one v one competition. But the improvements would not even be close enough to make it worthwhile. The disadvantages of introducing a whole new aircraft type would negate those performance improvements.
Yep. It’d be absolute madness to run two types, two sets of ground crew, two parts inventories, two maintenance cycles / upgrade paths.
We’d also have to integrate Rapid Dragon with the C390 ourselves.
We’d also joining a global fleet of …… 9…. fo the Embraer vs 2,500 for the C130.
I don’t know what the acquisition costs are but given scale the C390 must be higher.
In short - no thanks.
From the figures I've seen cargo bay length is 1.6m more than the C-130J-30, & overall length 0.5m greater, so it's not necessarily totally impossible. Overall length 5.9m more than a basic C-130 & cargo bay 6.0m more. Max TO 12.6 tons more than the -30, max cargo 6.0 tons more. Definition of hold could, of course, be different: aha - Embraer says "including ramp". USAF says C-130 ramp is 3.1m, which pretty much eliminates any difficulty, I'd say. Without the ramp C-390 cargo hold isn't much longer than that of a standard C-130. There's a picture here, on page 16 - https://embraer.bynder.com/m/7dafc1...Millennium_Brochure_Ingles_ONLINE_12aug22.pdf
Only 9 delivered so far, but a few dozen on order.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
If Boeing hadn’t screwed up so badly on development of the Dreamliner, MAX, KC-46, and Airforce One projects the Embraer-Boeing agreement might have changed the “9” to a much higher number. Stuff happens!