RAAF Tanker Plan???
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Over 250 posts so far. Perhaps I support Pprune by posting regularly.
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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. 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.
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. 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.
Last edited by itchybum; 10th Jun 2004 at 12:36.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: USA
Posts: 211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
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!
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!
Last edited by Gnadenburg; 10th Jun 2004 at 23:24.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Over 250 posts so far. Perhaps I support Pprune by posting regularly.
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah a real "inside" joke there. No one would EVER know what you were talking about.... 
Anyway you're a bit late... milt sorted out your mumblings.
Anyway you're a bit late... milt sorted out your mumblings.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Bankstown
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Keep 'em coming Cessnadude
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Bankstown
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So Pig tankers it is then
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?....
I wonder what Carlo thinks of this idea?....
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Back again.
Posts: 1,140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
World's greatest fighter! Have a few more drinks and throw another pearl of wisdom out Cessnadude.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: earth
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cessnadude
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....
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.
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....
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Oz
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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)?
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)?
Nunc est bibendum
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!
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!
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Melbourne
Age: 60
Posts: 952
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just when the thread was getting boring...
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!
It's good to see that Cessnadude has his buddy, Macchi, to assure us that Cessnadude is a credit to his (Cadet) uniform!
DIVOSH!
But that's okay, because his good mate, Macchi, walked up to the crease and hit a boundary!
It's good to see that Cessnadude has his buddy, Macchi, to assure us that Cessnadude is a credit to his (Cadet) uniform!
DIVOSH!
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Bankstown
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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??
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??
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: earth
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Back again.
Posts: 1,140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.)
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Sydney
Posts: 398
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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