Royal Australian Air Force [RAAF] News, Discussions and Updates
So the RAAF and the previous government made the right choice afterall!
As AD suggested when this was first leaked last week, no one should be surprised at the outcome of the review. It will be interesting to see how Defmin Fitzgibbon 'spins' this when the outcome is officially announced.
Tas
All they have achieved is waste money (the review will ahve cost) for the opportunity for a bit of political point scoring. I am sure the govt will find some sort of criticism our of the review.
Hi there Aussie Digger,
it still intrigues me, that we could have bought, or still can, the Sukhoi range of jets, as you know they have a jet for all occassions it seems. The Sukhoi 33 for example, will out gun, shoots 200ks further, flies higher, faster and has a longer range and costs cheaper, than the "tricked up" and revamped Super Hornet.
Why on earth would we buy a jet the USA Navy et al allegedly rejected years ago, for it is not new, rather than getting the Sukhoi range, which are cheaper per unit, are quick for delivery on order, have very long maintainence life, etc etc etc?
I just do not get it?? Russia isn't the 'bad guy' anymore...or is it?
I have no idea on the JSF, but I do know, there is something better than the F3..., now in testing than the....err...maybe I won't say that here...
Anyway, I am no "expert" buff or whatnot in these areas, but, it is truly AMAZING what gets sent through email to pals...then relatives...and the Yanks think we leak like a sieve! That is the pot calling the kettle black.
Anyway, I am off topic, but, I would like to know, besides the F22 Raptor, which the US Senate blocks for foreign sale anyway, why do we settle for something less attractive, are we somehow LOCKED into dealing with our buddies the Yanks? By the statistics that I have seen, from their official sites, the Super Hornet is outlcassed in just about every way by the Sukhoi 33 etc range.
What is going on in Canberra? Are the 'advisers' in Defense being bribed, or is it Yanky allegiance, or are they just plain stupid?
sorry about the long windedness...
Last edited by a moderator:
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
Why on earth would we buy a platform that is incompatible with our weapons arsenal, logistical train, baseing requirements, information distribution network, training and maininance people? We would have to re work the entire system, for what a platform that in agregate (i.e. organization wide) terms is outclassed by the one we bought. What a great idea! Any saveing you got on a cheaper platform would be lost (and then some) on the billions you spent rebuilding your entire intergrated air defence system to accomidate a sook. It would have been cheaper to buy F-15E strike eagles BII (which are also better than a Flanker).
Why? Because it has the best radar missile combination yet put into a fighter, arguably the most advanced EW/EWSP suite again ever put into a fighter (only rafale being comperable) and arguably the most advanced HUI and combat management system put into a fighter (only typhoon being comperable). Then theres the 10% commonality with the current hornet fleet and the world wide USN logistical infestructure. Thats why!
1. SH was not outclassed by the SU.
2. were not locked into dealing with the yanks, if you look at most of the major defence contracts being signed lately they are EU not US. Hobart class, Canberra class, ARH, MRH-90, NH-90, SPH. We chose "yank" aircraft becasue they best suite our needs. Thats all.
we're not locked into dealing with the US, but our doctrine and a substantial amount of what goes with combined symbiotic ops makes it highly relevant and appropriate.
as for this ongoing commentary about getting sukhois, you have basically nailed it. there are however a raft of other reasons as to why we wouldn't consider going with russian kit.
why in heavens name people are enamoured with a russian solution is beyond me.
having seen some of their gear up close, I'm at a loss to see why we would want to even comtemplate going from a "western" build philosophy to something that is not even remotely similar at a build and fit quality level. In fact, if one even compares the LO build quality standards on a Shornet to a Rafale it is visibly and noticebly different. A Rafale is an order of magnitude better in build finesse than the Flankers....
build quality represents a number of coherent mindsets IMO. It may suit everyone else - and they are welcome to buy them. Me? I'm happy that we travel a different path....
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Oout-gun. What does that mean exactly? They have roughly the same payload capability, but the SU-30's have 14x external hardpoints and the SH only has 11 I hear you say?
Possibly your information sources are unaware of dual rail launch systems and what not and yet in anycase "sheer numbers" do not tell the full story even when the paper statistics you seem to rely upon tell anything like the reality of the situation.
Perhaps you mean the crap that APA like to spell out about the "superiority" of Russian missile systems over "Western"?
I like Dr Kopp's recent article about the superiority of Russian missiles for instance. He claims that the AMRAAM missile hasn't been a great success in combat.
Well, unlike modern Russian missiles it at least HAS combat success...
The Super Hornet IS the US Navy's front line fighter. It was not rejected...
The Sukhoi's do not have an outstanding range. What you need to look for is "fuel fraction". This determines range more than the sheer quantity of fuel.
When you look at that, you will see that the Sukhoi does NOT outclass the Western fighters by as much as some would have as believe and in the case of the F-35 does not outclass it ANY way whatsoever.
As to the Sukhoi's alleged improved maintenance, I think you'll find even the most rabid Sukhoi fan admitting that they are not THE easiest aircraft to maintain.
There is the well-known anecdotal story about how they "met" Malaysia's requirement to equal or exceed the engine life of the F-404 engines in their existing F/A-18 Hornets.
They supplied twice as many engines...
They are not stupid in Canberra. The Sukhoi is not superior in ANY way that actually matters.
The APG-79 is rated as the most capable radar system in the world and even Dr Kopp admits it will take some time for the Sukhoi radars to match it's capability.
Of course to "reach" it the US would have to stop any development work ON their own aircraft. Is that likely?
As to something being "better" than the F-35, I'd like to hear what you think it is and why. Surely you've informed yourself about these matters? Perhaps a read of the hundreds of pages of discussion on this site alone might help.
Tell you what though, here's some thoughts on the F-35 and SU-30 Sukhoi.
F-35 weighs - 12.7 tons. (In post-weight reduction configuration).
Su-30 weighs - 17.7 tons (in MKI configuration)
F-35 carries 8.4 tons of fuel internally.
SU-30 carries 9.4 tons of fuel in total (including external tanks).
F-35A has a wing area of 42.7 square metres and a "clean" aerodynamic airframe. (It can perform operationally with NO external stores, which improves radar cross section and minimises drag effects).
SU-30 has a wing area of 62 square meters and a "dirty" airframe which requires all stores to be carried externally (which means it suffers a massive radar cross section and massive drag penalties).
F-35 produces 19.5 tons of afterburning thrust and 12.7 tons of "dry" thrust.
Su-30 produces 24.9 tons of afterburning thrust and 15.3 tons of "dry" thrust.
F-35 therefore has a thrust to weight at 50% internal fuel of: 1.15:1 on afterburner.
Su-30 therefore has a thrust to weight at 50% internal fuel of: 1.11:1 on afterburner.
F-35 therefore has a thrust to weight at 50% internal fuel of: 0.75:1 on dry thrust (non-afterburner).
Su-30 therefore has a thrust to weight at 50% internal fuel of: 0.68:1 on dry thrust (non-afterburner).
F-35 has a 700mm class AESA radar system.
Su-30 has a 1000mm class "mechanical" scanned array radar system.
F-35 has a radar cross section of 0.0014 square meters.
SU-30 has a radar cross section of 10 square meters.
F-35 therefore possess:
1. Greater fuel fraction. (This means greater range, longer time which afterburner can be used).
2. Greater thrust to weight ratio, in dry and "mil power" settings.
3. Greater radar capability. The radar may be smaller, but it is 2 generations or more BEYOND the capability of the SU-30's radar.
4. The F-35 possesses a radar cross section of infinitely smaller than ANY Su-30 variant will ever manage.
Where exactly does this alleged superiority stem from then?
RubiconNZ
The Wanderer
I think that is the problem exactly not many have seen them "up close" all they see are promotional statistics and at times over inflated figures in used to scare up extra defense spending.
Nothing the B707's are leaving RAAF service (last operations in June 08) I was wondering if it is likley the ADF will make use of the IAI refuellng pods from these aircraft.
Given therse were fitted in the early 90's and it may not be practical, however, if it were a couple of second hand A330-200 fitted with the drouge system (noting the wing already has the mointing arrangments as it is also used for the A340 four engined Airbus) would appear to provide a useful support and trining tool for not a lot of much cost(relatively speaking) given the Hornet, SH and Hawk all use probe and drouge. From my untutored perspective this would provide a useful extension to the KC-30B and could also reduce airframe hours on the primary aircraft in regards to the training support role. It would also provide additional training platforms for crew of the KC-30B itself.
Given therse were fitted in the early 90's and it may not be practical, however, if it were a couple of second hand A330-200 fitted with the drouge system (noting the wing already has the mointing arrangments as it is also used for the A340 four engined Airbus) would appear to provide a useful support and trining tool for not a lot of much cost(relatively speaking) given the Hornet, SH and Hawk all use probe and drouge. From my untutored perspective this would provide a useful extension to the KC-30B and could also reduce airframe hours on the primary aircraft in regards to the training support role. It would also provide additional training platforms for crew of the KC-30B itself.
Last edited:
I've been told the MTBF of these pods is lower than the actual 707s themselves, plus I think Omega Air has made an offer for the aircraft, pods, engines lock stock and barrell.
Making a tanker out of an airliner takes alot more than just adding a couple of pods, and not just from an insurance point of view. Plus, 2nd hand A330s, if you can find any, are selling or leasing for almost the same amount as new ones at the moment due to the global shortage in widebody uplift.
The more likely scenario is that the RAAF would lease in someone like Omega to provide a tanker for exercises such as Pitch Black, Talisman Saber etc.
Yep I just read about the Omega offfer (mooted) in Australian Aviation (sadly after I typed my post). It will be interesting to see if the 3 options on the KC-30B are taken up.
That is pretty much just speculation...
The last official information is that the ADF is committed to the Super Hornet and F-35 projects and is interested in possibly aquiring some F-22 capability.
Lets just be patient and see what comes out of the review from official sources.
Last edited:
Considering that we are having difficulty getting access to single ITARs caveated gear - then I would suggest that getting access to a complete platform that has regularly generated "not for sale coments" from the cousins is optimistic.
this issue is bigger than just a platform sale to RAAF - and thats what a lot of the enthusiastic commentary forgets...
There are certainly a wide range of complex issues and challenges involved, many of them very political in addition to the usual economic and military considerations.
The regional military situation is very dynamic and is changing substantially with dramatic increases in the military capabilities and spending across our immediate region. This has very serious strategic military implications; particularly combined with uncertain/unstable political environments.
But that is all for people much better informed to discuss and resolve.
What is interesting is that there seems to be some level of optimism in the Government that the F-22 could become available to the RAAF (as a special case) should that capability be deemed necessary.
In any event we will know in the not too distant future which way the RAAF wishes to go.
The point is that the critical discussions are outside of australian govt influence. Thats a point lost on some of the enthusiasts who think we can just "ask". Do they not think that these discussions took place 5 years ago??
I would seriously question your interpretation of the level of confidence. Don't confuse media hype with actual events.
Exactly, but some of the processes required to make decisions requires stepping stones to be in place, contracts to be extended or delayed (and not just big ticket items) etc.....
I would seriously suggest that you ignore the rubbish in the media and wait. I'd also suggest that some of the announcements over the last few weeks are a different indication of a new colour and movement.
Things predicted in here and a few other forums have come to pass.
I personally would not bet my house on us getting the F-22 as part of a companion Shornet or JSF solution. The logistics alone (let alone external politics that have nothing to do with Australian domestic politics) should make the serious thinkers pause before comment.
That however is my own opinion.
There are a ton of issues involved here, I am just going to wait for an official announcment (whenever that eventuates), and
Personally I think an F-22 aquisition is highly unlikely.
I could see recommendations that Phase 3 of the AIR 5376 (F-18 Structural refurbishement) is rolled back a bit in favour of aquiring additional Super Hornets particularly if it is envisioned that there may be additional delays in getting the F-35 operational (and significant capability gap).
I could also see recommended to purchase some EA-18G Growler instead of some F/A-18E Super Hornets.
But only time will tell.
If I was to bet on something. it would be that we aren't getting F-22's
Grandstrat
New Member
Wasn't the ORME review meant to come out on May 1? When does the unclassified version come out, after the next NSC meeting? Anyone know when that is?
lol, lots of questions
lol, lots of questions
Unclassified wll be released at the discretion of PM&C as well as Defence.
There are normally multiple levels of release,
unclass, class, austeo etc.....
the unclass will be as boring as watching grass grow in a dry summer....
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
1st, it was short notice because we are in a pinch due to the pig's , we are in fact buying these platforms of the USN rather than Boeing. Therefore we weren't in a position to negotiate.
2nd, quoted platform prices are fickle things. The tricky thing is a platforms actual price is actually quite hard to determine, its not like a car. Every deal is different, and therefore the price for a fighter changes for every different customer. The $45m figure could be a number of things, it could be a UFC, a UPC it may be bare bones, it may be $USD ect. Every deal includes hardware, logistical support, weapons, spares & training. Therefore the actual price can change quite a bit between deals.
Anyway i'm not sure we got such a bad deal. IIRC the recent Algerian(?) deal for 24 F-16 Block 50's (much cheaper and less sophistocated), if all the options are taken will cost $2.4bn USD, we spent $2.9bn on 24 SH BII's. Not too shabby...