RAAF Future Air Combat Capability Review
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Oz
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by L J R
....even the 'boring' (self imposed) 4G (or whatever NzW - he thinks), won't allow an airframe extension. It is time to trade in the 1964 Torana for the 2007 Commodore, while waiting for the 2010 BMW chaps, even if it 'runs'well', unfortunately the rust under the carpet is now getting your feet wet, and soon the drivers seat will fall through the floor. - oh and by the way, the 8 track cannot be serviced anymore - no matter how good the sound used to be.
At least you didn't mention EH Holden or I would have been REALLY suss...
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Canberra Australia
Posts: 1,300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The max approved g for an F-111C at medium weights up to about 72,000 pnds is 6.5g reduced for non combat in the interests of longevity to 4.0g. Other variants having shorter wings were released to 7.33g which is two thirds of ultimate of 11g. All of that was predicated on a Mil8866 g exceedence spectrum to which the fatigue test structures eventually went to 4 lifetimes.
Max F-111C NzW was thus about 470,000 and there continues to be a small insignificant error in the flight manual graph.
Cold (-40 degrees) proof load tests give confidence in airframe structure out to 5,000 hours of normal unrestricted flight loads to which is applied a safety factor of 0.5 = 2,500 hours.
There should be plenty of life in the old girls/pigs yet which is more than one can say for many types which have not been through the same intensive structural investigation.
Max F-111C NzW was thus about 470,000 and there continues to be a small insignificant error in the flight manual graph.
Cold (-40 degrees) proof load tests give confidence in airframe structure out to 5,000 hours of normal unrestricted flight loads to which is applied a safety factor of 0.5 = 2,500 hours.
There should be plenty of life in the old girls/pigs yet which is more than one can say for many types which have not been through the same intensive structural investigation.
Last edited by Milt; 6th Jan 2008 at 08:50. Reason: correct error 10 = 11
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Bris Vegas Australia
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Check this out for informed input to the review!
Thanks Razor 61 for initially posting this info....Check out what the Melbourne Rag turned it into!
http://www.theage.com.au/news/nation...554610139.html
As if 2 jets pranging is going to remove confidence in a design that's been in service that long!
http://www.theage.com.au/news/nation...554610139.html
As if 2 jets pranging is going to remove confidence in a design that's been in service that long!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dont flinch!
Don’t flinch Labor!
Finally I thought the Gov’t was starting to make some decent procurement decisions. The C-17, although driven by an ill-conceived M1A1 purchase was for the most part a great, min-time, off the shelf acquisition.
Now, for once the Govt made a couple of smart decisions in a row. They are faced with a possible scenario in 2012 of the JSF being still 4 years away, the F18A fuselage cracking in half (alla F15C)…I know HUG will prevent this…and the F111 being scattered around various parks in Ipswich on a stick.
They looked ahead. Became concerned about the scenario above and looked for a solution. They wanted one that they could buy right now. Off the shelf. A proven design, with all the bells and whistles to make it effective for at least the next 10 years or so. There is nothing else out there that has AESA, 120s, 9X, link, helmets, J series weapons, advanced pod etc etc etc all in one package. We don’t need to wait for the development of any of this on the Block II hornet. The USN is flying and fighting in this a/c right now. F15E is a great jet, but it doesn’t have all that gear…yet. AESA is still 6-9 years away in the USAF.
This is not a sales pitch…every other suggested platform is still under development in some way. I would hate to see the RAAF (via the new Labor Govt’s post election posturing) piss this away. We have an opportunity to get an aircraft into service in min time that will give us a 10 fold increase in every modern air combat capability you can name. The only thing it won’t do is M1.2 at sea level for half an hour….or at all with any sort of load-out. But who cares? The F18F will bring so much to the table it would make the old and bold's eyes water….and I agree a Su-30 will turn circles around it. It will on an Eagle also btw.
Explaining the Avionics/EW and Weapons caps of the block II hornet to dudes like those clowns on 4-corners would be like explaining to your dad how to set the auto-timer function on your old VCR. They just don’t understand.
Anyway my point is…I hope they don’t piss this 90% solution away looking for the last 5%.
Finally I thought the Gov’t was starting to make some decent procurement decisions. The C-17, although driven by an ill-conceived M1A1 purchase was for the most part a great, min-time, off the shelf acquisition.
Now, for once the Govt made a couple of smart decisions in a row. They are faced with a possible scenario in 2012 of the JSF being still 4 years away, the F18A fuselage cracking in half (alla F15C)…I know HUG will prevent this…and the F111 being scattered around various parks in Ipswich on a stick.
They looked ahead. Became concerned about the scenario above and looked for a solution. They wanted one that they could buy right now. Off the shelf. A proven design, with all the bells and whistles to make it effective for at least the next 10 years or so. There is nothing else out there that has AESA, 120s, 9X, link, helmets, J series weapons, advanced pod etc etc etc all in one package. We don’t need to wait for the development of any of this on the Block II hornet. The USN is flying and fighting in this a/c right now. F15E is a great jet, but it doesn’t have all that gear…yet. AESA is still 6-9 years away in the USAF.
This is not a sales pitch…every other suggested platform is still under development in some way. I would hate to see the RAAF (via the new Labor Govt’s post election posturing) piss this away. We have an opportunity to get an aircraft into service in min time that will give us a 10 fold increase in every modern air combat capability you can name. The only thing it won’t do is M1.2 at sea level for half an hour….or at all with any sort of load-out. But who cares? The F18F will bring so much to the table it would make the old and bold's eyes water….and I agree a Su-30 will turn circles around it. It will on an Eagle also btw.
Explaining the Avionics/EW and Weapons caps of the block II hornet to dudes like those clowns on 4-corners would be like explaining to your dad how to set the auto-timer function on your old VCR. They just don’t understand.
Anyway my point is…I hope they don’t piss this 90% solution away looking for the last 5%.
Last edited by MDPE; 10th Jan 2008 at 01:17.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Bris Vegas Australia
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JSF not the panacea
Here's a quote from the Dec 07 Journal of Elecronic Defense (their spelling!).
It is from a bloke way up in LM and it seems to prove that you need more than just the Sonderwaffe F-35 in your airforce if you want to fight anyone with an IADS:
From Neil Kacena, Lockheed Martin’s Vice President for Advanced Development Programs, on the current limitations of stealth:
Sounds to me like an accidental Lock Mart endorsement of the requirement for the B-Word EA-18G...Take note enquiry members!!!
It is from a bloke way up in LM and it seems to prove that you need more than just the Sonderwaffe F-35 in your airforce if you want to fight anyone with an IADS:
From Neil Kacena, Lockheed Martin’s Vice President for Advanced Development Programs, on the current limitations of stealth:
“There was a time when stealth was good enough [to allow US aircraft to penetrate an integrated air defense system]. That time is gone. In fact, I would suggest that there’s not a single capability out there today, on its own, that’s going to grant survivable access and mission effectiveness. A marriage of low-observability, airborne electronic attack [AEA] and a net-enabled capability is needed to achieve high levels of survivability.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: your mother's bedroom
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Integrated air defence as in Moscow or Beijing. Actually very few countries have it. Even Western Europe doesn't have integrated air defence over most cities. As you can tell, integrated air defence is geographically limited and can be partly overcome by gliding munitions. PS. If you're planning to sortie over Moscow soon with your shiny Typhoons and SCALP, kindly inform here first so I can blow my savings on booze and top hookers in anticipation of world oblivion.
Upgrades
Errrm... isn't everone missing the point.
As long as you have good countermeasures, powerful AESA and a couple of grunty BVR air to air and air to ground missiles... it doesn't really matter what airframe you hang them off.
As long as you have good countermeasures, powerful AESA and a couple of grunty BVR air to air and air to ground missiles... it doesn't really matter what airframe you hang them off.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: GAFA - East
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Isn't all this talk of SU30 Vs Eurofighter, Superbug, Rafale or Grippen a Moo point (cow's opinion).
Unless you are in an F22, finding yourself alone in the same piece of sky as a SU30 means you have f-
-d up.
Unless you are in an F22, finding yourself alone in the same piece of sky as a SU30 means you have f-
-d up.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: The Inner Planets
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Genuine question for you Aussies, not meant to be a wind up.
Why do you want such gucci toys when your nation seems very averse to letting your tac air go on ops?
Your AP-3s do a decent job. Your C-130s likewise. When are we going to see Aussie fast air doing something productive alongside them?
Why do you want such gucci toys when your nation seems very averse to letting your tac air go on ops?
Your AP-3s do a decent job. Your C-130s likewise. When are we going to see Aussie fast air doing something productive alongside them?
Iraq 03. Some very good stuff they did do. Maybe one day someone will write a book.
Diego before that. I think they took the award for furtherest away from a combat zone to be awarded a AASM for that, striping that mantle from the 707 Sqn. Which was great banter material and then they went away to the MEAO and earnt them. Which took away some great banter material bugger them!
Also some involvement in re directing an Antonov full of goodies from PNG to Aus.
On alert for East Timor for awhile to.
That should be enough to justify them.
can't believe I'm standing up for knucks!!!!!!
Diego before that. I think they took the award for furtherest away from a combat zone to be awarded a AASM for that, striping that mantle from the 707 Sqn. Which was great banter material and then they went away to the MEAO and earnt them. Which took away some great banter material bugger them!
Also some involvement in re directing an Antonov full of goodies from PNG to Aus.
On alert for East Timor for awhile to.
That should be enough to justify them.
can't believe I'm standing up for knucks!!!!!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Bris Vegas Australia
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Better plan than the UK option
Why do you want such gucci toys when your nation seems very averse to letting your tac air go on ops?
I tend to agree with flying Blind's question to the headshed.........
Last edited by antipodean alligator; 16th Jan 2008 at 12:00. Reason: Addition
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: The Inner Planets
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the responses guys.
I think it's a moot point as far as the quality of your kit. In terms of fast air in particular, I don't think there's anything we'd swap although your A330s look very nice.
What is evident whenever working with you guys on ex and ops is that your mindset and tactics are increasingly outdated because you're not being 'stimulated' by current ops. That's no hit on the quality of your personnel, but I can't understand why you guys have not offered up your Hornets for ops.
I think it's a moot point as far as the quality of your kit. In terms of fast air in particular, I don't think there's anything we'd swap although your A330s look very nice.
What is evident whenever working with you guys on ex and ops is that your mindset and tactics are increasingly outdated because you're not being 'stimulated' by current ops. That's no hit on the quality of your personnel, but I can't understand why you guys have not offered up your Hornets for ops.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Biggles,
At the risk of being considered a sh1t stirrer, I don’t consider one deployment, out of 5 FJ Sqn’s, on warlike service in the last 15 years to be ‘punching above weight’. We have ships, troops and multi crews constantly deployed. We currently have Dutch F16 and AH64 crews providing CAS. I really think a deployment in spt of our troops on ops would be good for all, and would continue to further the cause of SH/F35. This can be justified as needing the best kit now to provide spt and prevent our troops dying on the battlefield.
Backwards PLT and Kraziman,
I am not sure I agree with either of you, particularly Krazimand at post #33, regarding your thoughts on CAS. Consider danger close missions in complex terrain. Consider minimising, at times, collaterale damage. Consider persistence and flexibility.
At the risk of being considered a sh1t stirrer, I don’t consider one deployment, out of 5 FJ Sqn’s, on warlike service in the last 15 years to be ‘punching above weight’. We have ships, troops and multi crews constantly deployed. We currently have Dutch F16 and AH64 crews providing CAS. I really think a deployment in spt of our troops on ops would be good for all, and would continue to further the cause of SH/F35. This can be justified as needing the best kit now to provide spt and prevent our troops dying on the battlefield.
Backwards PLT and Kraziman,
I am not sure I agree with either of you, particularly Krazimand at post #33, regarding your thoughts on CAS. Consider danger close missions in complex terrain. Consider minimising, at times, collaterale damage. Consider persistence and flexibility.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lincs
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Out of interest, how much time do your Pigs and Hornets spend practising Air Land Interface? Your Willytown FA-18s in particular just seem to major in sanitised airspace PIs east or west of homeplate.
If we'd used our fast jets at the same rate you guys have on ops, we'd be fighting to justify retaining any fast air, let alone a Raptor or FA-18F buy.
Regards,
MM
If we'd used our fast jets at the same rate you guys have on ops, we'd be fighting to justify retaining any fast air, let alone a Raptor or FA-18F buy.
Regards,
MM
G'day GB
I agree with you, what use is a defense force if you don't use it! The problem with ours is that its small and until recently was fitted for but not with. It has changed, starting with Timor that we actually got the kit and the money and the political will to use our ADF in conflicts. I'm sure the FJ boys would love to go on more ops. I fear however we will go back to a 2nd hand, cheapest bidder and 40 year old F111 force very shortly with no political will for its use, time will tell.
Boldface, it was our Hornets that went to Iraq. Not for too long but when you only have 71 minus your trainers, minus the HUG up grade, etc etc, we can't really sustain operations unless the hordes are coming over the motherland.
I agree with you, what use is a defense force if you don't use it! The problem with ours is that its small and until recently was fitted for but not with. It has changed, starting with Timor that we actually got the kit and the money and the political will to use our ADF in conflicts. I'm sure the FJ boys would love to go on more ops. I fear however we will go back to a 2nd hand, cheapest bidder and 40 year old F111 force very shortly with no political will for its use, time will tell.
Boldface, it was our Hornets that went to Iraq. Not for too long but when you only have 71 minus your trainers, minus the HUG up grade, etc etc, we can't really sustain operations unless the hordes are coming over the motherland.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have no doubt that the deployment of Aussie fast jet support would have been a hot topic across many desks at Canberra over the past 12 months.
But I fear the following issues would prevent such a deployment:
- The lead up to the election, and the subsequent incoming Labor 'government'
- The Hornet upgrade program (availability and crews)
- Low F-111 survivability and high operational costs (even in relatively beneign threats)
- The surplus of fast air available in Australia's current area's of operation
While I am sure the boys would love to be supporting Aussie troops on the ground, I suspect that until most of the above points were justified or resolved, the support offered would be limited to CAS planning, and supporting training operations and workups.
But then again, a trip away in anger might keep a few more interested....
But I fear the following issues would prevent such a deployment:
- The lead up to the election, and the subsequent incoming Labor 'government'
- The Hornet upgrade program (availability and crews)
- Low F-111 survivability and high operational costs (even in relatively beneign threats)
- The surplus of fast air available in Australia's current area's of operation
While I am sure the boys would love to be supporting Aussie troops on the ground, I suspect that until most of the above points were justified or resolved, the support offered would be limited to CAS planning, and supporting training operations and workups.
But then again, a trip away in anger might keep a few more interested....
Last edited by Naked_recommiting; 20th Jan 2008 at 05:31.
Just because you don't see it on the 5 o'clock news doesn't mean our jets don't see action!
The Iraq deployment got very Little publicity, didn't make it any less real though.
The F111 does not have low survivability, but yes it is expensive to run.
Switzerland has the biggest airforce fleet (per capita) in the world, and they have never even been invaded. But it's still a big stick wave at any would be invaders.
Now think about Australian history, it only around 66 years ago when we DID have an invading force at our doorstep.
I still find it funny how so many people are only looking at the whole issue with blinkers on, a defence strategy involved more than just a single entity (strike platform), hence the criteria is quite specific.
Plus think of some of the logistical advantages;
The Iraq deployment got very Little publicity, didn't make it any less real though.
The F111 does not have low survivability, but yes it is expensive to run.
Switzerland has the biggest airforce fleet (per capita) in the world, and they have never even been invaded. But it's still a big stick wave at any would be invaders.
Now think about Australian history, it only around 66 years ago when we DID have an invading force at our doorstep.
I still find it funny how so many people are only looking at the whole issue with blinkers on, a defence strategy involved more than just a single entity (strike platform), hence the criteria is quite specific.
Plus think of some of the logistical advantages;
- It takes 2-3 days to convert a rated hornet pilot to the Super Hornet, it would take considerably more time (and money!) to convert any of our other air crew to another platform.
- We have engineers who are rated on the F18, and only need a bridging course instead of a whole new rating.
- We have existing relationships with Boeing, and Boeing has significant infrastructure in Australia
- We already know how to integrate in to Boeing systems.
- We deal largely with the US in other conflicts, so borrowing some munitions is possible because of interface commonality. The same cannot be said for our European and Russian counterparts.
- We just spent a few billion on Wedgtail (Boeing), so having a fighter/strike platform that has systems ready to integrate with it makes a LOT of sense.
- And the list goes on, but I've run out of time!