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

SpazSinbad

Active Member
I'm not sure if this is old news but YouTube has just released a video on LMS delivery of Full Mission Simulators to F35 partners.
It looks pretty impressive to this layman.

https://youtu.be/9P3McuWfNAU
The computer voice commentary is parroting an LM PR text and at no time does the video show an F-35 Full Mission Simulator but rather Prepar3D flight simulator views along with the Travel Simulator or a mockup of the F-35 cockpit. The video below first shows F-35C pilots using the desktop training sim with touch computer screen for the PCD Panoramic Cockpit Display as seen in the real F-35 along with the throttle and stick flight controls and HOTAS buttons.

Then we see an F-35 pilot putting on the 'special for FMS' HMDS then entering the real FMS which displays a realistic flight scenario on the 360 degree dome, the seat/pilot otherwise does not move (your mind moves). The FMS is so realistic it is cleared to train pilots in air refueling (which no other sim can do).

F-35 Pilot FMS Eglin AFB Training Full Mission Sim
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFAoGNQ4Uvo

The attached .GIF graphic shows the dome surrounded by display paraphernalia with the 'seat tunnel' while the instructor station is outside the dome. Although F-35 training in Oz is not due to start until c.2020 I'll assume time is taken to build/install such devices as the FMS in a special building to house it.

An LM PR blurb about FMS installations here with relevant to Oz/UK last paragraph one would assume. RAF Marham is having facilities for same built now and one would assume Oz at RAAF Willytown.
"...As the F-35 program prepares for full-rate production, pilot and maintenance trainers will be delivered to additional international F-35 customers beginning in 2018." https://www.f35.com/news/detail/international-allies-receive-f-35-full-mission-simulators
 
Last edited:

SpazSinbad

Active Member

foxdemon

Member
That's the problem with interested amateurs who have not looked past the current "news" reports and at the history of many of the types currently in service, let alone the types they superseded. Its very easy to be horrified at the dollar amounts being discussed and the years of delays but if they looked back they would find very similar cost and time over runs on the very platforms they favour today.

I agree there is a lot of hyperbole in the media around the F-35. Yet it is not hyperbole to say the F-35 is a problem child. Surely the best historical equivalent would be the F-111, another problem child. It is remarkable that there are those who favour the old problem child over the new problem child.

In both cases the problems come from developing innovation and trying to cover too many requirements for different services. I want to ignore the later (itÂ’s been argued to death) and focus on the former. The technology in the F-35 is very ambitious. Sensor fusion and the automated logistics was always going to be full of bugs due to being complex and the first attempt to achieve it.

The return will be paid in future projects when this currently problematic technology is ironed out and becomes routine. But it has to be developed somewhere along the line.

The Super Hornet is the complete opposite. A not so ambitious project using established technology to create a reliable, workman like aircraft. Few problems, low costs, no delays. Yet it doesnÂ’t raise the bar for the state of the art.

The RAAF is lucky to be operating both aircraft in the next decade. It is a bit like a racing car team. One fancy, innovative car design which might excel and set the new standard, or it might flop woefully. The second car in the team uses what worked last year. Even if the innovative car flops, there is the current state of the art option to rely on. Generally that is a sensible approach to managing the risks associated with innovation.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Australia has been willing to operate two fast jet fleets, something Canada gave up on years ago. Having a viable backup jet just in case makes sense, even though the chances of the F-35 going sideways now is very unlikely. Our backup is next door.

The Superhornet was a quick and fast fix for the classic Hornet disguised as an upgrade. The USN couldn't manage to get funding for a true F-14 replacement, something they really wanted and still need. Nevertheless, the Superhornet was an important addition to the USN and this seems to be the case for the RAN too.
 

hauritz

Well-Known Member
Australia has been willing to operate two fast jet fleets, something Canada gave up on years ago. Having a viable backup jet just in case makes sense, even though the chances of the F-35 going sideways now is very unlikely. Our backup is next door.

The Superhornet was a quick and fast fix for the classic Hornet disguised as an upgrade. The USN couldn't manage to get funding for a true F-14 replacement, something they really wanted and still need. Nevertheless, the Superhornet was an important addition to the USN and this seems to be the case for the RAN too.
Perhaps Australia should just hang onto the F-18F. All of the arguments about the benefits of commonality kind of flew out the window when Australia bought the Growlers.

First of all 12 of the Superhornets are "Growler Ready". We should hang on to those. They might be needed if Australia ever decides to expand the Growler fleet. Then there is flight training. When the F-18B s retired we will still require some sort of conversion training for pilots. It might be better to do that in a standard Superhornet rather than burn up flying hours in a growler.

The third reason is that Generation 6 is just around the corner. The USN has its own plans for replacing the Superhornet and maybe Australia should simply follow the their lead.
 

John Newman

The Bunker Group
Australia has been willing to operate two fast jet fleets, something Canada gave up on years ago. Having a viable backup jet just in case makes sense, even though the chances of the F-35 going sideways now is very unlikely. Our backup is next door.

The Superhornet was a quick and fast fix for the classic Hornet disguised as an upgrade. The USN couldn't manage to get funding for a true F-14 replacement, something they really wanted and still need. Nevertheless, the Superhornet was an important addition to the USN and this seems to be the case for the RAN too.
Yes we are going to operate two fast jet fleets, probably up until the late 2020's (assuming approval is given by the mid 2020's to replace the Super Hornets with that 4th operational squadron of F-35A).

But I also think we need to go back and have a look at the 'timeline' as to why we are in that situation (for better or worse, depending peoples opinions).

As we know the original plan for the introduction of the F-35A as the one type to replace both the Classic Hornets and the F-111C's went out the window when the then Government in early 2007 decided to retire the F-111C's by 2010 rather than 2020.

And the obvious answer to that rather short time frame and transition period was the Super Hornet.

Whilst a lot of people jumped up and down regarding the early retirement of the F-111C fleet at the time, in hindsight, I think it's worked out pretty well for the RAAF.

Like you, I don't see the F-35A going sideways now, but what the fleet of Super Hornets does allow for is that bit of extra insurance, eg, having a modern operational combat aircraft in service whilst we see the transition from the Classic fleet to F35A during the period 2018-2023.

So I think the Super Hornet acquisition (originally as an interim for a 10 year period and now stretched to a 20 year period), has worked for us with both the early replacement of the elderly F-111C fleet and seeing out the transition period from Classic Hornet to F-35A.

But having said that, I would still like to see (once transition to the approved 72 F-35A is completed), that the decision is made to transition out the two types to the combined fleet of 100 F-35A by 2030.

Which puts us back on track as originally planned, one operational type, one training requirement, one lot of spares, etc, no need for all the overheads and expense that operating two types carries.

So what about Growler you might say? Yes it is based on the Super Hornet airframe, but it's a new and separate capability (just like the introduction over the coming years with the 5 G550's ISR/EW aircraft).

As to the Super Hornet airframes, at the least I'd certainly like to see the pre-wired airframes kept as attrition airframes, and/or a modest expansion of the Growler fleet if deemed necessary.

Anyway, the RAAF is in a pretty good situation with what is has in hand at the moment and what is just around the corner too.
 

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
Sure it can be more expensive operating two different types however for that extra expense you also gain the advantages. With the life of the aircraft being as long as they are you risk running into the situation where half way through the aircrafts intended life span it is made outdated due to advances in tech, By operating a two fleet force you can introduce such latest tech every 15 or so years allowing your force to be constantly with the curve rather then falling behind it.

For what would be a marginal amount in extra costs of operating two different type I reckon it is well worth the gains in retaining technology superiority (so to speak). Could even be the F-35 goes the way of the hornet in being evolved into a better aircraft again.
 

John Newman

The Bunker Group
Sure it can be more expensive operating two different types however for that extra expense you also gain the advantages. With the life of the aircraft being as long as they are you risk running into the situation where half way through the aircrafts intended life span it is made outdated due to advances in tech, By operating a two fleet force you can introduce such latest tech every 15 or so years allowing your force to be constantly with the curve rather then falling behind it.

For what would be a marginal amount in extra costs of operating two different type I reckon it is well worth the gains in retaining technology superiority (so to speak). Could even be the F-35 goes the way of the hornet in being evolved into a better aircraft again.
I take you point, but I disagree.

Certainly in the past, a fair way in the past, it wasn't unusual for new airframes to be 'out of date' by the time the last came off the production line, and therefore a relatively short 'effective' service life, but that cycle of obsolescence doesn't appear to happen anywhere near as frequently today.

Look how long it has taken for the 5th Gen F-35 to get to where it is today from where it started, I would imagine that the introduction of a proposed 6th Gen aircraft will still be many decades down the road, if recent history is anything to go by.

As far as introducing new tech, and in relation to the F-35, I'm sure we are only seeing the tip of the iceberg at the moment, whilst I don't imagine that we are going to see significant airframe mods over the coming years (as is the norm with previous 4th gen airframes), I imagine that what we will see is all of the various Block software upgrades and the integration of longer ranging and smarter weapons on the F-35 platforms that will keep it moving forward and relevant too.

Again I take you point, but I still think (just my opinion), that the RAAF will be better served in 2030, and beyond, by a larger single fleet of 5th Gen aircraft (with significant growth potential), rather than a mixed fleet of 4.5 and 5 gen airframes waiting for the next evolution to arrive.

Anyway, time will tell!!
 

SpazSinbad

Active Member
Oz Growlers are being upgraded in lockstep with USN Growler upgrades and just recently an agreement for Oz to participate in development of the NGJ Next Gen Jammer with the USN was signed. My crystal ball says that as long as the RAAF see the Growler relevant to their ConOps (network centric warfare) then the Growler being upgraded along with the F-35A over time will be the way in future but as my ball is orange, going rusty.... ???
 

John Newman

The Bunker Group
Oz Growlers are being upgraded in lockstep with USN Growler upgrades and just recently an agreement for Oz to participate in development of the NGJ Next Gen Jammer with the USN was signed. My crystal ball says that as long as the RAAF see the Growler relevant to their ConOps (network centric warfare) then the Growler being upgraded along with the F-35A over time will be the way in future but as my ball is orange, going rusty.... ???
What? You've only got one orange rusty ball? I'd go see the Doctor about that, and ask where the other one is too, maybe you need to give it a polish (ha ha!!).

But all jokes aside, yes was aware of the future growth path for the Growler fleet, and our involvement in the future development of the NGJ too.

Looking at my crystal ball(s) (bit cloudy and faded, but not rusty yet?), I would certainly hope that by 2030, we see the RAAF with 100 F-35A (maybe up to a Block 4.? or 5.? upgrade by then) and the 12 Growlers (conformal tanks?) and NGJ, that the RAAF will be in just about the strongest, and most capable, position it has been in for many many previous decades.

And both in combination with all of the other force multipliers too (KC-30A, E-7A, G-550, P-8A, Triton, smarter and longer ranging weapons too), Aegis, CEC, and whatever else is in the hands of the broader ADF too.

Without being arrogant, I can certainly see the RAAF being one of (if not the), most capable and advanced small/medium air forces in the World at that time.
 

John Newman

The Bunker Group
I came across this one the other day on the Defense-Aerospace website:

Pentagon Contract Announcement

It's the report of a contract awarded to L3 for US$210m for an 'undisclosed' FMS purchaser, see below:


(Source: US Department of Defense; issued Nov 3, 2017)

-- L-3 Technologies, Greenville, Texas, has been awarded a not-to-exceed $210,000,000 cost-plus-fixed-fee undefinitized contract action for aircraft engineering, procurement and fabrication. Work will be performed in Greenville, Texas, with an estimated completion date of April 2, 2022. This contract involves 100 percent foreign military sales and was a sole-source acquisition. Foreign military sales funds in the amount of $102,900,000 were obligated at the time of the award. The 645th Aeronautical Systems Group, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, is the contracting activity (FA8620-18-F-4801).

-- L-3 Technologies, Greenville, Texas, has been awarded a not-to-exceed $71,000,000 cost-plus-fixed-fee undefinitized contract action for mission system development. Work will be performed in Greenville, Texas, with an estimated completion date of Nov. 30, 2020. This contract involves 100 percent foreign military sales and was a sole-source acquisition. Foreign military sales funds in the amount of $34,790,000 were obligated at the time of the award. The 645th Aeronautical Systems Group, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, is the contracting activity (FA8620-18-F-4802).

And of course there is this from earlier this year:

Australia – Gulfstream G550 Aircraft with Airborne Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance, and Electronic Warfare (AISREW) Mission Systems | The Official Home of the Defense Security Cooperation Agency

This is the FMS details for the US$1.3b procurement of the 5 Gulfstream G-550 for the RAAF in an AISREW configuration. And of course L3 is the prime contractor for that project too.


As we know there is very little, if any, detail in the public domain regarding the G550 AiSREW project for the RAAF, and maybe I'm clutching at straws and adding one and one and ending up with three, but I wouldn't mind taking a gamble on that the dollars award to L3 might just be part of that RAAF G550 project.

Very interesting!!!
 

foxdemon

Member
What? You've only got one orange rusty ball? I'd go see the Doctor about that, and ask where the other one is too, maybe you need to give it a polish (ha ha!!).

But all jokes aside, yes was aware of the future growth path for the Growler fleet, and our involvement in the future development of the NGJ too.

Looking at my crystal ball(s) (bit cloudy and faded, but not rusty yet?), I would certainly hope that by 2030, we see the RAAF with 100 F-35A (maybe up to a Block 4.? or 5.? upgrade by then) and the 12 Growlers (conformal tanks?) and NGJ, that the RAAF will be in just about the strongest, and most capable, position it has been in for many many previous decades.

And both in combination with all of the other force multipliers too (KC-30A, E-7A, G-550, P-8A, Triton, smarter and longer ranging weapons too), Aegis, CEC, and whatever else is in the hands of the broader ADF too.

Without being arrogant, I can certainly see the RAAF being one of (if not the), most capable and advanced small/medium air forces in the World at that time.
I agree we should be going the full 100 LightningÂ’s. 36 aircraft is about right for a useful strike capacity. 5 squadrons would give us two strike groups and an extra squadron to serve as part of the OCG and form a reserve. Plus a10% attrition reserve of spare airframes. In my view that would be the bare minimum.

But F-35’s alone make for a bland meal. They need the force multiplying ‘secret herbs and spices’ to be effective. Such as the P8A, E7, etc. I would like to see the RAAF aquire a second drone type in addition the the Triton, to directly support the F-35. We need to wait and see how the MQ-25 program pans out since it is very economical for us when the USN pays the development costs.. I’m hoping the Sea Avenger wins as it is affordable and will provide a useful refueling and relay role. Umm, and other roles besides.

The Growler wonÂ’t last much longer than the SHornet. When the kinks have been ironed out of the F-35 it will replace the Growler through having suitable EW drones in support. I expect the software on the F-35 will eventually be developed to handle that. But it will likely be over ten years before the new air war system has been cobbled together.

In the mean time both Growler and SHornet will earn their keep. The SHornet will be one of the first platforms cleared to employ LRASM. We desperately need a credible sea strike capability. LRASM is itself a stop gap. Nastier stuff is in the pipeline. But those swarm cruise missiles and the SHornet variants will provide essential strike capability for a decade or so. But the F-35 will make contemporary aircraft look kinda lame when it finally gets itÂ’s stride.
 

SpazSinbad

Active Member
...The video below first shows F-35C pilots using the desktop training sim with touch computer screen for the PCD Panoramic Cockpit Display as seen in the real F-35 along with the throttle and stick flight controls and HOTAS buttons.

Then we see an F-35 pilot putting on the 'special for FMS' HMDS then entering the real FMS which displays a realistic flight scenario on the 360 degree dome, the seat/pilot otherwise does not move (your mind moves). The FMS is so realistic it is cleared to train pilots in air refueling (which no other sim can do).....
More complete FMS video with extra bits at the end showing the cockpit entering the tunnel into the FMS dome with the pilot at the controls shown (special helmet HMDS sim for the FMS sim is worn inside the FMS).

F-35 Pilot Desk & FMS Full Mission Simulator Training

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zcc2zmTHgxo
 

old faithful

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Whatever happens to the 7th wedgetail?
I thought we bought all the systems and were just waiting for an airframe? Did we acquire the systems and keep it for a rainy day?
 

Milne Bay

Active Member
Whatever happens to the 7th wedgetail?
I thought we bought all the systems and were just waiting for an airframe? Did we acquire the systems and keep it for a rainy day?
As I recall, we purchased four initially with an option for three more.
Of those three we acquired two.
Didn't know about acquiring the systems for a seventh, but is it possible that these were acquired for ground training - or is there a simulator for that?
MB
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
As I recall, we purchased four initially with an option for three more.
Of those three we acquired two.
Didn't know about acquiring the systems for a seventh, but is it possible that these were acquired for ground training - or is there a simulator for that?
MB
Maybe that is where the money came from for the 5 g550's. Not a bad exchange, the G550's are going to be quite capable and that adds significantly more air frames with those types of capabilities, which are/could be complimentary. CAEW and ISR.
 
Top