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

Beam said:
I hear the air force is using the call sign "Shark One" when the PM is on board.
Click to expand...

I understand the name is a reflection of the PM's choice of NRL Team.
Probably a more appropriately PC term than my choice of AFL team, Essendon..................................................................................."The Bombers"

//www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/inside-shark-one-scott-morrisons-new-dollar250million-plane-is-revealed-after-a-commercial-jetstar-airbus-a330-is-transformed-into-a-100-seater-tanker-for-the-prime-minister/ar-AAH1PYT

Regards S
 
Stampede said:
Noticed today that the PM flew into Washington today on his ( Our ) new MRTT.
As the boom was attached, I'm wondering if this component can be easily be removed; or is it a permanent structure to remain an integral part of the aircraft for the remainder of its life.
I realise that the MRTT is a tanker first and a PM bus second.

Interested to know?

Regards S
Click to expand...

I could well imagine that the boom (and under wing pods too) are able to be removed (specifically for replacement/maintenance, etc), but why would the RAAF bother operating this aircraft without the boom?

How often would the PM and the accompanying media scrum be away on long overseas trips? I think that could be measured in 'weeks' rather than 'months' per year. Why bother?

Cheers,
 
Beam said:
I hear the air force is using the call sign "Shark One" when the PM is on board.
Click to expand...

Screw the Sharks, they can get stuffed! (I'm a Parramatta Eels supporter!).

A better nickname would be to use the serial number A39-007 of the aircraft: '007 Bond, James Bond'

Ha ha!!!
 
John Newman said:
Screw the Sharks, they can get stuffed! (I'm a Parramatta Eels supporter!).

A better nickname would be to use the serial number A39-007 of the aircraft: '007 Bond, James Bond'

Ha ha!!!
Click to expand...

Well you won’t be happy at the moment, geez is this the same team from last week?
 
John Newman said:
I could well imagine that the boom (and under wing pods too) are able to be removed (specifically for replacement/maintenance, etc), but why would the RAAF bother operating this aircraft without the boom?

How often would the PM and the accompanying media scrum be away on long overseas trips? I think that could be measured in 'weeks' rather than 'months' per year. Why bother?

Cheers,
Click to expand...

Hi John

The answer probably lies in the practicality in time and expense of temporarily removing the boom for VIP service.
I don't have a particular passion with the subject but just wondering as to the feasibility.
May prove a better look O/S doing the diplomatic stuff and probably frees up some weight.

just a thought.


Regards S

PS - a good post by yourself on the RAN site....................cheers
 
Stampede said:
I don't have a particular passion with the subject but just wondering as to the feasibility.
May prove a better look O/S doing the diplomatic stuff and probably frees up some weight.

just a thought.
Click to expand...

It's not a refueling hose for a car. It's a complex, expensive piece of kit which will take time to remove, more to reinstall and test, and for what? So that a valuable Multi Role air asset can be made a little sleeker and Single Role to satisfy our egos? An asset that we may need more of than we have anyway. And it's no small piece of kit either perched out at the extremes of the airframe, so removing it will have a significant effect on the aircraft centre of gravity.

Frankly, I reckon I coukd do a cost benefit analysis on a postage stamp that would determine whether it should be removed or not

oldsig
 
Just out of curiosity is the VIP section movable between KC30A aircraft being only one does that create a possabile failure as there is no replacement unless they send a 737 and another KC30A depending on the amount of people on the flight
 
John Newman said:
Screw the Sharks, they can get stuffed! (I'm a Parramatta Eels supporter!).

A better nickname would be to use the serial number A39-007 of the aircraft: '007 Bond, James Bond'

Ha ha!!!
Click to expand...
t68 said:
Well you won’t be happy at the moment, geez is this the same team from last week?
Click to expand...
This is off topic and since this Mod's team, the Broncos, played like a bunch of preschoolers the other day he's extra grumpy so all acknowledged of other teams will be bammed :p:p:p
 
t68 said:
Just out of curiosity is the VIP section movable between KC30A aircraft being only one does that create a possible failure as there is no replacement unless they send a 737 and another KC30A depending on the amount of people on the flight
Click to expand...
Don't know how the RAAF have configured theirs, but the RNZAF one is a easily configurable one that is basically palletised, so can be moved between B757s. Same with the seating.
 
t68 said:
Just out of curiosity is the VIP section movable between KC30A aircraft being only one does that create a possabile failure as there is no replacement unless they send a 737 and another KC30A depending on the amount of people on the flight
Click to expand...

I don't know if the VIP section is modular or not, but I think the real difference between -007 and the other six airframes is the additional secure comms systems, see the video below:


There is a large white dome just forward of the tail, which I've never seen on the other aircraft, see example below:


Regardless of being able to swap out the VIP section or not (at worst they could remove sections of cattle class seating and insert first class seating), I'd imagine that the additional comms system is specifically (and permanently) fitted to -007.

Cheers,
 
ngatimozart said:
This is off topic and since this Mod's team, the Broncos, played like a bunch of preschoolers the other day he's extra grumpy so all acknowledged of other teams will be bammed :p:p:p
Click to expand...

A Kiwi supporting the Broncos? Shame on you!!

Makes me feel a little better about last nights result against the Storm to know my team made you extra grumpy! Ha Ha!!
 
Stampede said:
Hi John

The answer probably lies in the practicality in time and expense of temporarily removing the boom for VIP service.
I don't have a particular passion with the subject but just wondering as to the feasibility.
May prove a better look O/S doing the diplomatic stuff and probably frees up some weight.

just a thought.


Regards S

PS - a good post by yourself on the RAN site....................cheers
Click to expand...

If they were worried about a better 'look' they probably wouldn't have painted -007 in grey and with the Roundel in grey too.

As for the boom, maybe they can strap something like a parachute pack (for VIP flights) and when they land 'pull' the string and a big Aussie flag pops out!

Cheers,
 
John Newman said:
A Kiwi supporting the Broncos? Shame on you!!

Makes me feel a little better about last nights result against the Storm to know my team made you extra grumpy! Ha Ha!!
Click to expand...
OFF TOPIC: Have supported the Broncos since they started. Will not and never have supported that team in Auckland because it's against my religion to support any Auckland team - it's a South Island thing. Die-hard Maroons' supporter too.
 
hauritz said:
The white paper says they are planned for the late 20s so it might be a while before they are ordered.
Click to expand...

I think the 2016 DWP is now a bit out of sync with what is actually happening.

Originally the DWP said eight airframes "will be introduced in the early 2020s, with seven additional aircraft to be acquired in two tranches to bring the total to 15 aircraft by the late 2020s".

The first eight are well and truly in service, the 9th and 10th are already here too, the 11th just came off the Boeing line and I believe that, both the 11th and 12th, will be here in Oz by early next year (January 2020).

I'd suggest that with the speed that P-8As are being delivered (globally) that a decision to place an order (or not) for those three extra aircraft would have to be made sooner rather than later.

Wait too long and it will be just like what happened with C-17A production, put your order in or miss out!!

Cheers,
 
John Newman said:
I think the 2016 DWP is now a bit out of sync with what is actually happening.

Originally the DWP said eight airframes "will be introduced in the early 2020s, with seven additional aircraft to be acquired in two tranches to bring the total to 15 aircraft by the late 2020s".

The first eight are well and truly in service, the 9th and 10th are already here too, the 11th just came off the Boeing line and I believe that, both the 11th and 12th, will be here in Oz by early next year (January 2020).

I'd suggest that with the speed that P-8As are being delivered (globally) that a decision to place an order (or not) for those three extra aircraft would have to be made sooner rather than later.

Wait too long and it will be just like what happened with C-17A production, put your order in or miss out!!

Cheers,
Click to expand...
Well they have orders out to 2023 so hopefully they don't muck it up again. The airforce has done pretty well with its Orion replacements. They will not only get 15 P8A and 6 or 7 Tritons but they also get to replace the EP-3 with at least 4 Gulfstream G550s as well.

On a side note I wonder what they intend doing with the old Orions.
 
Last edited:
hauritz said:
Well they have orders out to 2023 so hopefully they don't muck it up again. The airforce has done pretty well with its Orion replacements. They will not only get 15 P8A and 6 or 7 Tritons but they also get to replace the EP-3 with at least 4 Gulfstream G550s as well.

On a side note I wonder what they intend doing with the old Orions.
Click to expand...

It's one thing having orders out to 2023, it's another thing to ensure that all the long lead items are still being produced, that is where the real crunch time comes into play, assuming an airframe is delivered in X year, a lot of the parts would have been produced well before that date.

In regard to the USN EP-3s (and the two RAAF ELINT AP-3C (EW) airframes), its been reported that the MQ-4C is actually going to be fitted with a EP-3 'type' capability, it would appear that Triton will possibly be more of a direct replacement for those airframes, not necessarily the MC-55As (G550s).

What the actual role/capability of the four MC-55As will be is still very foggy and misty (certainly for most of us on the outside), I would imagine that they and Triton will probably have 'overlapping' capabilities to a certain degree.

As to what has happened to the old AP-3C airframes, two are still in service for a few years yet (the AP-3C (EW) airframes), the rest have either been scrapped, ended up as museum pieces and a fair number of them have been sold to a firm in the USA to be parted out, see the ADF-Serials link below:

ADF Serials - Orion

Cheers,
 
Last edited:
hauritz said:
Well they have orders out to 2023 so hopefully they don't muck it up again. The airforce has done pretty well with its Orion replacements. They will not only get 15 P8A and 6 or 7 Tritons but they also get to replace the EP-3 with at least 4 Gulfstream G550s as well.

On a side note I wonder what they intend doing with the old Orions.
Click to expand...
I understand that Boeing told everybody last orders so that's why NZ had to pull finger. IMHO NZ are 2 aircraft shy on their order. Yes the RAAF have done very well, but they've been smart in their procurement, knowing what they want, being realistic about it, getting what they require approved, being innovative and forward thinkers.
 
Although the P-8 isn't a MAX derivative, a significant downturn in future narrow body sales may see Boeing rethinking and perhaps waiting for the glacially inclined prospects, e.g. Canada for one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top