RAAF Tanker Plan??? [Archive]

Cessnadude

8th Jun 2004, 13:09

It is obvious that the regional superpowers are gaining a much stronger foothold into SE Asia with them buying Su 30s. (I saw this machine at Singapore airshow and it is a much better platform than the RAAFs FA18). Since the RAAF are prematurely retiring the F111, with persistent profiles the current fleet of 80 to 100 hornets will need 12 to 15 A330 tankers to support them against this superior fighter. - for the doubters - this is obviously due to the realistic nature of network centric warfare!!

Keg

8th Jun 2004, 15:07

Obviously well researched there Cessnadude!

71 Hornets comprising of 54 single seaters and 17 two seaters.

The JSF will address the SU30 in the coming years (according to defence anyway!) and there is always the option for more tankers in the future as well. I would have thought that five is a more than adequate number for the short to medium term! Then again, I'm certainly no expert on the matters.

Di_Vosh

8th Jun 2004, 15:20

Your posts are a crackup.

I'll agree that the F18 is getting a little old, but all tankers are going to do is let an old aircraft stay in the air longer (3 times longer, if you have your way).

IF the Su 30 is so much better, and IF their pilots are so much better trained, then the 12 or 15 tankers may be a bit lonely up there...

DIVOSH!

kmagyoyo

8th Jun 2004, 22:37

Resident expert Cessnadude;

When was the SU 30 at the Singapore Airshow???

When did we buy more Tupperware jets????

Why is orange jam called marmalade????

Is your old handle Booger????

Captain Sand Dune

8th Jun 2004, 22:55

SU30...........whatever.........it all comes down to the person flying it.:ok:

Cessnadude

9th Jun 2004, 01:08

Guys,
I was not prepared to give away accurate numbers of assets across the www, miltary secrets should remain so - I spent several years studying RAAF aircraft with the Cadets, however look to the future and we are looking at acquiring 80-100 new fighters. As for 34R's post I recommend you take a trip to the fighterworld museum at Williamtown, they have a viewing deck where you can listen to actual radio transmissions from the jets.... I did this a few years ago on a field trip and saw many more than 15 aircraft fly that day! Back to the discussion at hand, does the Goverment recognise there is currently a Tanker gap and if so why are'nt they trying to address it!:*

Milt

9th Jun 2004, 01:44

Tankers for the RAAF

Don't forget that the Wedgetails get mighty thirsty also and will want a fair share of the go juice.

But the RAAF has never had to go it alone has it - except for E Timor perhaps.

Keg

9th Jun 2004, 02:11

Cessna, if this isn't a wind up then you need to get some serious lessons on 'reality'.

I was not prepared to give away accurate numbers of assets across the www, miltary secrets should remain so

The information I quoted was available on the web on the RAAF's very own web page. Here, I've even attached the link for you! :rolleyes: RAAF F/A18 web page (http://www.defence.gov.au/raaf/organisation/technology/aircraft/hornet.htm)

... spent several years studying RAAF aircraft with the Cadets

Having had just a little experience with the syllabi that you are talking about, I know the depth of your studies with the cadets. Did you do ARA? From memory, there isn't a lot in there about air power. Thats a whole seperate subject in the MoCT.

Cessna, 34R was being facetious. Obviously gentle sarcasm is lost on you!

does the Goverment recognise there is currently a Tanker gap and if so why are'nt they trying to address it

Is there a tanker gap? I'm not convinced there is- especially given the types of conflicts that we could be expected to be involved in and the support that would be available for such a conflict.

Secondly, even if there IS a gap, perhaps the cost of addressing the alleged gap is something that the government has in mind. It's all about threat/cost. Isn't a high threat and the cost of these assets is high. Doesn't take long to work that one through.

Seriously cessna, either your winding up or naieve- either way, you've been exposed for one of them.

poison_dwarf

9th Jun 2004, 02:43

I was not prepared to give away accurate numbers of assets across the www, miltary secrets should remain so - I spent several years studying RAAF aircraft with the Cadets, however look to the future and we are looking at acquiring 80-100 new fighters.

cessnadud - its hardly a secret. 75 Hornets minus 4 aircraft lost = 71 Hornets. Go to http://www.adf-serials.com/ for the history of every RAAF Hornet

As for the JSF - even the announcment of the selection mentioned 100 aircraft, so again its pretty common knowledge.

Di_Vosh

9th Jun 2004, 02:51

CessnaDude, please keep your posts coming!

I was not prepared to give away accurate numbers of assets across the www, miltary secrets should remain so - I spent several years studying RAAF aircraft with the Cadets, however look to the future and we are looking at acquiring 80-100 new fighters.

What security clearance did you get in the Cadets?

DIVOSH!

Buster Hyman

9th Jun 2004, 02:57

never had to go it alone has it - except for E Timor perhaps
If having a US carrier group stationed somewhat north (?) of PNG is "going it alone", then yes, the RAAF went alone.;)

Seamore Butts

9th Jun 2004, 03:05

Ha ha ha................
Please excuse me while I wipe a tear from my eye.
This is some seriously funny stuff.
Thanks Cessnadude.
My day is just that little bit brighter because of your posts.

SB

itchybum

9th Jun 2004, 22:02

Wedgetails??? Are they being equipped with an air refueling probe? I don't think so......

it all comes down to the person flying it I thought it comes down to the quality of the AI RADAR. Helmet-mounted sights, AMRAAMs, etc and all the gucci toys all make a difference too and if it gets beyond that point, then the fight goes to he who gets the first "tally-ho"... at least according to all the fighter-nerd type magazines I've read.

Just like in the "J" hey Di Vosh?? ;)

:ok:

kmagyoyo

9th Jun 2004, 22:09

Thats why we are getting a tanker with a boom. So it can refuel the Wedgies.

Love to see a 737 chasing a basket thou' :sad:

Di_Vosh

10th Jun 2004, 02:22

Been a while, now, but you've gotta make that first shot count!

:)

DIVOSH!

Captain Sand Dune

10th Jun 2004, 03:49

I thought it comes down to the quality of the AI RADAR. Helmet-mounted sights, AMRAAMs, etc and all the gucci toys all make a difference too

..........all the "gucci toys" won't make a jot of difference if you don't know how to use them properly.

Suggest you stop reading those "fighter pilot nerd magazines" (Flying, Australian Aviation, and anything by Carlo Kopp) as well.

itchybum

10th Jun 2004, 10:04

okay .... I'm waiting for capt sand dune to post a new thread with the bare-bones on how to use all the kit properly. And what the slopes up north are doing wrong and how you would improve their technique given the chance.

You and cessnadude should get together for a grape knee-high sometime in the Willy undershoot.

kmagyoyo I don't see any sign of a refueling probe in this wedgetail pic (http://www.airliners.net/open.file/581189/M/). Maybe they pull the hose in through the FO's #2 window..... Maybe it has a retractable boom hidden somewhere. Maybe it can't be refueled in the air.

Milt

10th Jun 2004, 13:01

Wedgetail

Probe was considered for Wedgetail in flight refuelling.

Common sense set in and it now has a boom receptacle.

itchybum

10th Jun 2004, 16:06

"receptacle"

Awesome. Good to see they bought all the options. :ok:

kmagyoyo

10th Jun 2004, 22:49

Itchybum,

Maybe I was too subtle...if the Wedgetail is going to be fitted with an AAR capability it would be a receptacle for a 'flying boom' type tanker.

When we get the A330 tankers they will be fitted with said boom. This will enable them to refuel JSF (whenever that gets here), the Pig (if its still around), plus any loafing USAF assets that happen to be passing through. It will also still have drogues fitted for probe equipped aircraft ie the Hornet.

The last comment in my previous thread was aimed at guys who have probe refueled before...bit of an inside joke which went over your head.

Happy?

Gnadenburg

10th Jun 2004, 22:54

Captain Sand Dune should have noted in Dubai, what it costs to fill his room with Russian hookers, will also buy former ( or current ) Russian SAM culture.

Not sure if their Mig/Sukhoi instructors come any cheaper.

If the Indon's were serious-and they aren't-they could build a credible threat to the RAAF with both the above. In light of the fact the RAAF was relegated to an escort role in the recent Gulf War crisis-not having the kit for Day 1 operations against an early generation threat.

Lessons in history ring true again. The RAAF has always been sent to war without the capability to match the threat of the day. WW2, Korea, Vietnam ( Caribous were good ). Adding, this not a reflection of the bravery or professionalism of the crews, more the ignorance of the government of the day.

I agree Kopp's ideas fanciful. But in 10 years the RAAF will have under 40 Hornets and a few Orions. In 15 years, with cost blow outs and the army probably offering more bang for buck, with borrowed American airpower, JSF numbers similar.

The RAAF will need public support. Even Carlo's. Remember the RNZAF! And a new Labor government here, will love to debate the relevance of fighter bombers in the war on terror.

And Cessnadude has a RAAF commission!

itchybum

11th Jun 2004, 19:34

Yeah a real "inside" joke there. No one would EVER know what you were talking about.... :rolleyes:

Anyway you're a bit late... milt sorted out your mumblings.

Cessnadude

12th Jun 2004, 03:09

Thanks for everyones input here, it has been great reading!

I was having this debate at the scanner club last night while having a couple of haagens (nectar!) when one of the guys said the RAAF should turn the F111 into a tanker! He reckons you could put 5 fuel tanks on it and use it refuel the hornets at a tactical airspeed.

I am sure this is not the best thing for the worlds greatest fighter but I didn't have any good arguements as to why not. I know there are some smart guys on here so does anyone have any good arguements for me?

P.s Gnadenburg, you must have me confused, the RAAF did beg me to come and fly fighter jets for them when I finished my time in the cadets, but I decided to keep my options open at the moment.

Di_Vosh

12th Jun 2004, 04:04

It's a pity you don't go out drinking more often!

PURE GOLD!

:ok:

DIVOSH!

Cessnadude

13th Jun 2004, 11:34

I guess by the lack of any replies that you are all like me, lost for a reason as to why the RAAF should not turn the F111 into a tanker. I guess if the USN do it with the FA18F, there is no reason why the RAAF shouldn't do it either.

I wonder what Carlo thinks of this idea?....

Lodown

14th Jun 2004, 21:08

Why not just fill them up with HE, upgrade the autopilots and use them for cruise missiles. The result would be a little like a public servant - won't work and can't be fired.

World's greatest fighter! Have a few more drinks and throw another pearl of wisdom out Cessnadude.

poison_dwarf

15th Jun 2004, 13:40

cessnadude
P.s Gnadenburg, you must have me confused, the RAAF did beg me to come and fly fighter jets for them when I finished my time in the cadets, but I decided to keep my options open at the moment.

At first I thought you were just trolling or here for light comic relief, however this post shows you for the self centered, opinionated, uninformed fool that you are.

If you were as you say a member of the AAFC you should have at least half an clue as to the selection process and training involved to become a member of the ADF, let alone a fighter pilot. Given that hundreds if not thousands apply every year for the limited number of aircrew positions, stating that the RAAF did beg [you] to come and fly fighter jets makes a mockery of you and everything you have posted here.

Having been through the selection process myself, and knowing many others who also have, some successful and some not - I know that RAAF recruiters are looking at character and demeanour in all applicants. You wouldn't have a chance.

I'm sure other members of the AAFC who post here (there are a few) probably roll their eyes every time you fire up the keyboard....

Macchi

16th Jun 2004, 00:23

There's no need for personal attacks - I know Cessnadude and I will vouch for his bonafides. I have never known a more dedicated cadet, and he always has the RAAF's (and Australia's Defence) interests as his priority. He is an absolute credit to the uniform.

Back to the topic at hand, I also agree that we should buy more tankers, but I think 747 tankers would be a better option. To truly make these aircraft good value for money, they should also be purchased with some sort of gunship capability to supplement their tanker/transport role.

For example, doesn't it make sense that after refuelling the Hornets, rather than waiting for the inevitable re-fuel on RTB, they could best spend their time perform CQAS (Close Quarters Air Support)? :confused:

Keg

16th Jun 2004, 01:24

Easy dwarf, both cessna and macchi are winding you up. Whether cessna started out as a goose who got caught out and then went 'extreme' to hide or or whether it was a wind up from the start is difficult to say. That said, macchi is now adding fuel to the fire.

Even had me a little unsure when I first posted my response regarding the MoCT. Just quietly, I'm not convinced that cessna is even part (or ever was part) of the AIRTC/AAFC.

Anyway, don't stress it. Cessna and macchi may be serious or they may not. Either way, they both look like gooses! :E

Di_Vosh

16th Jun 2004, 02:21

I'd thought that Cessnadude's last post was a little poor, and was going to suggest that he needs another drink and try again (but Lowdown beat me to it).

But that's okay, because his good mate, Macchi, walked up to the crease and hit a boundary! :ok:

It's good to see that Cessnadude has his buddy, Macchi, to assure us that Cessnadude is a credit to his (Cadet) uniform!

DIVOSH!

404 Titan

16th Jun 2004, 02:25

Keg

Or they’re the same person. They do say talking to ones self is the first sign of insanity. Their ramblings certainly fit that description.
:E

Swingwing

17th Jun 2004, 03:35

don't let this die now, I've just found the thread!

Cessna - too funny.

kmagyoyo, I'm with you - Booger has gone very quiet, and there's just a hint of his writing style about cessna's posts....

There's a hint of real credibility about his "scanner club" insights though...

SW

Cessnadude

24th Jun 2004, 06:03

Sorry I haven't been around to see how this thread has run. Just got back from ripping up the northern sky from a week of solid aerial glorification (put some special fuel in the 152!!). Firstly, some of you are holding on a little too tight...............for your information poison short man, I know exactly what it takes to get in to becoming a fighter pilot, you've been through it hey????/ You mean you got scrubbed!

The insinuations that Macchi and I are the same person are ludicrous. Macchi is obviously some try hard wannabe that got scrubbed off Macchi conversion when that old piece of cr*p was the intro fighter (for you sceptics out there...see I did study at cadets........I know that the Hawk 129 is the RAAF's newest intro fighter.)

And finally back to the topic at hand, RAAF and tankers? Whats the solution?? F111 as the tankenator!!! Someone tell me why not??

poison_dwarf

24th Jun 2004, 11:35

for your information poison short man, I know exactly what it takes to get in to becoming a fighter pilot, you've been through it hey????/ You mean you got scrubbed!
At least I had a shot at it - rather than talking crap. Is it difficult for you to type one-handed like that ? :ok:

Lodown

24th Jun 2004, 18:54

Poison_dwarf, take a chill pill, he/she is just winding you up. Macchi and Cessnadude would have quite a conversation evaluating the 747 against the F111 as Australia's next World's greatest tanker. (I personally would like to submit a re-equipped Caribou as the next generation tanker and fighter for the RAAF. It's short field performance and load carrying capabilities are ideal. Maybe Cessnadude and Macchi could consider this in their next mass debate.)

wessex19

25th Jun 2004, 03:27

Cessnadude,
man you need to get on stage pronto. I haven't laughed so hard in a while. Great to see the Cadets taught you so much about strategic air combat. Keep up the great comedy mate:p

Cessnadude

25th Jun 2004, 07:36

Ok so some of my ideas may be a bit wild, but hey that's the type of guy I am. I don't see anything wrong with Macchi's suggestion of a 747 tanker, except when he reckons it could be used for CAS! What a numbnut! Everone knows you should strap 24 ASRAAMs to it and a couple of those Meteors and it would rock!!! Ok I know that is stupid.

I'll be serious for 1 minute. Fill an F111 to the brink with a buddy refueling drouge, let him fill 2 FA18, then sprint back the 200nm to the tanker track, fill up and come back out to meet the next pair. With self defences and an ability to run fast, what better tac tanker could you get??

By the way, a name for macchi's 747 could be the mega-leer!!!! ;)