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

[ADMk2]

Possibly a role for whatever succeeds them.

Wasn’t the RAAF supposed to be starting a program the replace them? I believe the RAF is also looking at replacing theirs.

Yep, but then #DSR happened…

But we have seen (below) the Hawk Mk.127’s doing some pretty advanced stuff…

I know they lack a radar and (I understand) a laser target designator, which is going to be quite the problem in attempting to guide laser guided rockets, but it occurred to me, we do have a fleet of Litening AT pods lying around, when we’re not fitting them to Hercs to trial whether having more ISR capability is a good idea or not…

I wonder how much effort it would take to put a Litening AT pod on a Hawk?

 

[hauritz]

Possibly a role for whatever succeeds them.

Wasn’t the RAAF supposed to be starting a program the replace them? I believe the RAF is also looking at replacing theirs.

They should prioritise Hawk Mk.127 replacement. We may find ourselves having to train a lot of pilots very quickly and I wouldn't want to rely on a fleet of 25 year old training aircraft for that job.

 

[OldTex]

They should prioritise Hawk Mk.127 replacement. We may find ourselves having to train a lot of pilots very quickly and I wouldn't want to rely on a fleet of 25 year old training aircraft for that job.

Wasn't the T-7 Redhawk supposed to replace the Hawk Mk127s? But just like the JSF/F-35 Australia may have jumped in on the bleeding edge and suffer the delays arising from slowly developing the capability that was promised at time of contract.
If not T-7 then what other platform is available? T-50 or M-346 or?

 

[Bob53]

I was all for getting F35Bs for the Canberra's, however more knowledgeable people explained that the limitations were the amount of fuel and munitions that could be carried on board could really only sustain around 8 of them for a week.
Not sure if that's accurate or not, but having a mobile run way has to be a game changer and if money is suddenly available to make the nessasary changes, then it may help fill the gap between the Hunters, AUKUS subs and mogamis.

Understands the fuel bunkering it could be limited but I thought that was left intact from the initial design? But weapons … a 22000 ton ship is limited with weapons it can store?

 

[swerve]

I think weapons for aircraft should have secure & safe storage from which they can easily & safely be got to the aircraft. That probably limits where they can be stored, & so most of the ship won't be suitable.

And IIRC the facilities for fixed wing aircraft, including weapons storage, designed in to Juan Carlos I were removed from the design for the Canberras.

 

[hauritz]

Wasn't the T-7 Redhawk supposed to replace the Hawk Mk127s? But just like the JSF/F-35 Australia may have jumped in on the bleeding edge and suffer the delays arising from slowly developing the capability that was promised at time of contract.
If not T-7 then what other platform is available? T-50 or M-346 or?

Had to check up on the status of the Redhawk. Seems to be having some developmental issues at the moment with the program about 3 years behind schedule with first orders placed for maybe next year. The only other contenders would seem to be the T-50 and M-346.

The RAAF is looking at replacing its Hawks around 2032. Important thing is to avoid the Canadian situation where they had to retire their Hawks and now have to rely on leased training aircraft until they sort out a long term replacement.