Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

New RAAF Training Aircraft

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

New RAAF Training Aircraft

Old 24th Sep 2014, 17:15
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Coal Face
Posts: 1,286
Received 316 Likes on 121 Posts
New RAAF Training Aircraft

Looking for credible intel on direction of Air 5428, the RAAF tender for a PC-9 replacement.

Any hot rumours? Anyone?
Chronic Snoozer is offline  
Old 24th Sep 2014, 19:57
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Penzance, Cornwall UK
Age: 84
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Can they really need changing?
Rosevidney1 is offline  
Old 25th Sep 2014, 01:11
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Yes - strange as it may seem, after 20+ years (22 for youngest RAAF example, 27 for oldest RAAF example) the airframes are getting a bit fatigued - by the time their replacements arrive (in another 5+ years), they will be close to worn out.

Since the actual timeframe for replacement, even with the process starting now, is more like 10 years before the first deliveries, then we are looking at a fleet average of ~35 years at replacement.

Sure, you could spend over 25% of the cost of a new aircraft for a complete refurbishment of the airframe to get a significant extension of the useful life - for an aircraft that reflects pre-1984* design, maintenance, and operational considerations - unless you spend even more to install more modern avionics etc.


* first flight of first PC-9 built
GreenKnight121 is offline  
Old 25th Sep 2014, 01:16
  #4 (permalink)  

Evertonian
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: #3117# Ppruner of the Year Nominee 2005
Posts: 12,437
Received 89 Likes on 50 Posts
Nov 24, 1987 was first delivery! Holy crap, I'd have never thought they were that old.

Anyway, never mind the training, what's a good platform for the Roulettes?
Buster Hyman is offline  
Old 25th Sep 2014, 03:04
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Great Southern Land
Age: 57
Posts: 434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Buster
what's a good platform for the Roulettes?
Gnats? F-104s? Hunters? Vulcans? MiG-21s? Ex-RNZAF MB339s?

Anything but PC-9s

I know .. I know ... (and I'm sure the CDF would sign off) Ex-RNZAF Ex-RAN A-4s.
Like This - Do That is offline  
Old 25th Sep 2014, 03:52
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Canberra
Posts: 244
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
only conjecture

PC21 or T6 would seem to the most viable options

In our 'neighbourhood', NZ have recently acquired the T6. RSAF had SIAI-Marchetti S.211 and now have PC21 for basic training.

All jet was tried with the Macchi and found wanting.

I seem to remember reading (but can't relocate) that a decision is expected in early 2015


As for what the Roulettes will have - expect it will be whatever 2FTS use.

Agree 'noisy' would be more attractive to the uninitiated but having seen Roulettes and Hawk at ADFA a few weeks back, the Hawk would disappear for long enough to think it had finished. Meanwhile, solo PC9 managed loop (seemingly) directly over the parade ground.

Last edited by layman; 25th Sep 2014 at 03:59. Reason: added bit about aircraft for Roulettes
layman is offline  
Old 25th Sep 2014, 03:53
  #7 (permalink)  

Evertonian
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: #3117# Ppruner of the Year Nominee 2005
Posts: 12,437
Received 89 Likes on 50 Posts
Anything but PC-9s
Can't argue the relative merit of the PC-9 as an aerobatic platform, but you can't knock the skills of the pilots! Always enjoy the Roulettes.

Hawks would be nice....[/wishful thinking]
Buster Hyman is offline  
Old 25th Sep 2014, 04:33
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
You'd think 'Team 21' (Lockheed-Martin/Hawker/Pilatus) and the PC-21 would be the best placed submission at this stage. BAE/Ratheon and the T-6 would be 'change for changes sake' imo.
Hempy is offline  
Old 25th Sep 2014, 04:40
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Land of Oz
Posts: 564
Received 9 Likes on 5 Posts
You are right - it is between PC-21 and T-6.


Despite the PC-21 already being based at Pearce with the RSAF (that is the Sings), I think the T-6 will get it. But I do not have enough facts to lay down why it is "better".
BBadanov is offline  
Old 25th Sep 2014, 05:07
  #10 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Coal Face
Posts: 1,286
Received 316 Likes on 121 Posts
Budget or capability? Choose one. Hopefully not the former.
Chronic Snoozer is offline  
Old 25th Sep 2014, 07:00
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NSW
Posts: 4,268
Received 31 Likes on 23 Posts
T-6 has a secondary armed role making it ideal for the FAC replacement at 4 Sqn in addition to the other uses. PC21 does not do this unless the DMO spend five times the value modifying it!!!
TBM-Legend is offline  
Old 25th Sep 2014, 08:29
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: North Queensland, Australia
Posts: 2,980
Received 14 Likes on 7 Posts
Controversial point here, but is FAC ever really a viable role in this day and age? All good fun in training, but I couldn't see us ever deploying PC-9s or their replacement to be marking targets over any kind of battlefield these days.
Arm out the window is offline  
Old 25th Sep 2014, 08:32
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Canberra
Posts: 244
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
PC 21 has hardpoints

according to Wikipedia ...

Pilatus PC-21 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Armament:
Hardpoints: Provisions provided for 4× under-wing and 1× centerline external store stations, capable of mounting up to 1,150 kg (2,540 lb) of payload of air-to-ground weapons to operate in the Counter-insurgency role.
layman is offline  
Old 25th Sep 2014, 10:09
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Fresno
Age: 74
Posts: 275
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Air Forces Monthly ran a flight-test report on the PC-21 recently that mentioned it could carry weapons, but I think it was envisioned that these would be used in a COIN role, not a FAC one.
Thud105 is offline  
Old 25th Sep 2014, 10:17
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Next to Ross and Demelza
Age: 53
Posts: 1,231
Received 49 Likes on 18 Posts
I still can't get my head around the thought that the PC-9 (and the Tucano for that matter) are now getting old enough to need replacing.

I feel old.
Martin the Martian is offline  
Old 25th Sep 2014, 12:55
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Great Southern Land
Age: 57
Posts: 434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
but is FAC ever really a viable role in this day and age
AOTW, probably not as FACs, but 4 SQN provides a very useful and cost effective input into JTAC training, doesn't it?
Like This - Do That is offline  
Old 25th Sep 2014, 14:09
  #17 (permalink)  
swh

Eidolon
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Some hole
Posts: 2,171
Received 24 Likes on 13 Posts
Controversial point here, but is FAC ever really a viable role in this day and age? All good fun in training, but I couldn't see us ever deploying PC-9s or their replacement to be marking targets over any kind of battlefield these days.
AT-802U prob be better. Pull the wings off and stuff it into a C130 or C-27J and send it anywhere around the world in a few hours.

2 seat, 15 hard points, lots of cameras, 10 hours endurance, .50 cal. GAU-19/A three-barrel Gatling guns, dual M260 7-tube rocket launchers, and 500 lb. Mk-82 bombs, hellfire etc.

http://www.802u.com/sites/default/fi...hure_07_10.pdf
swh is offline  
Old 25th Sep 2014, 16:28
  #18 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Coal Face
Posts: 1,286
Received 316 Likes on 121 Posts
One would hope the training platform selected is on the basis of its suitability as a training platform rather than as a FAC platform, surely. Still stranger things have happened.

Back to the topic. I've heard the RFP ran to about 1000 pages and multiple proposals required. All sounds very hard for an arguably simple decision. (when compared with F-111 replacement say.)
Chronic Snoozer is offline  
Old 25th Sep 2014, 18:21
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 64
Posts: 7,131
Received 320 Likes on 204 Posts
I think the Canadians fly the T-6, as do the USAF and now the USN.

I got to fly it over ten years ago.
It's a pretty good training aircraft.
I didn't get to fly the B version the Navy has gotten for its training wings.
I am not sure if that version might be more of what RAAF is looking for.
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 26th Sep 2014, 11:57
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Certainly, the Pc21 seems to be the better aircraft, but the T6 is cheaper. There may be other factors in play also, like the 'on base' or 'off base' solution which might have a bearing on which type gets the nod. It seems the rich Middle Eastern countries (Qatar, UAE, Saudi) gave gone with the PC21 and the Western countries (US, Canada, Mexico, Nz) have gone with the Texan. I really have no idea which system will be adopted, but it has to be better than the antiquated system we have now. Our trainers have lagged well behind the operational types.
dostum is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.