Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Australia Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Should the RAAF divest non core capabilities to the other services?
Volkodav    10/17/2009 4:07:48 AM
Would Australia be better served if the RAAF,instead of retaining control of much of the ADF's diverse air capability, concentrated on and specialised in core strategic capabilities in strike, ISR, transport, as well as Continental Air Defence? The non core capabilities, where the RAAF has little interest (other than the tasks are performed by aircraft), could be assigned to the services that depend on them. I am thinking of Maritime Patrol & Strike, Fleet air defence, CAS, FAC, battle field AD, tactical transport, strike and ISR. The RAAF currently operates a variety of types that are a compromise to meet, in part, the requirements of the other services. Divesting the non core activities the RAAF could concentrate on equiping with the best gear to defend Australia and deter attack. The Army and RAN could at the same time better intergrate the capabilities they need into their ORBAT's so they can better perform their current and future missions. An example would be Army Aviation employing a fixed wing light strike aircraft for CAS as well as operating the Caribou replacement. Thoughts.
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest

Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5   NEXT
south2       10/19/2009 5:10:05 AM
So what you are saying is that our current Hawk127's are not capable for armament and is completely useless for CAS?  Seems strange when I have seen video's of GBU12's, Mk82 High and Low Drags, 30mm gun pods, BDU training bombs and Aim-9 Missiles fired from them.  It also seems strange when I know that they perform a significant amount of training for the guys on JTAC course, and the guys on Hawk OPCON also get a couple of CAS training rides.  Looking further into what you have said re weapons, what you will find is that it was not capable of using weapons originally in service, but always was going to be capable of using weapons throughout its lifetime as the capability was brought online.
 
WRT to the PC9 having a derated engine.  You will find this is common on modern turboprops as it enables lighter and smaller gearboxes to be used, and by reducing the temperature within the engine it increases engine life.  Indeed the current T6 trainer is derated from 1600Hp to 1100Hp (not sure if this is changed for AT6/ T6B).    A further side benefit is that it enables said aircraft to maintain performance to higher altitudes, e.g the T6 will maintain 1100HP up to something like 16000ft before it starts to drop off.
 
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain    Hawk 127 facts.    10/19/2009 5:30:27 AM

The RAAF PC-9 trainer has a derated engine and was specifically ordered without provision for armament.  Our Hawk LIFT's were also ordered without provision for armament as the RAAF wanted to ensure that the type was of absolutely no value for CAS.  This was at the same time the RAAF was refusing to make the F/A-18 available for training with the Army and RAN as it was too valuable to be risked / wasted in such a manner.
 

"Mk 82 bombs, AIM-9M Sidewinder missiles and a 30mm cannon. The stores are carried on two wingtip missile stations or pylon-mounted on four underwing and one centreline hardpoints. A 30mm Aden cannon carried in a gunpod can be installed on the centreline station in place of the pylon. Stores are controlled by the integrated stores management system (SMS)."


"
Operations Flight is responsible for advanced jet training above and beyond what is taught during IFC, allowing pilots to develop their core flying skills, operational skills and leadership abilities. Operations Flight also provides fleet support to Navy and close air support training to Army."
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       10/19/2009 5:43:17 AM
The RAAF Hawks are glassed up as Hornets.  They're bussed and railed for the same weapons.  They've done air to air against some of our neighbours in training.

IIRC the PC9's are bussed for designators
 
Quote    Reply

south2       10/19/2009 6:19:30 AM


I don't know that the PC9 could be flown with a designator.  There is no GPS/INS to provide precise targetting for the Pod.  There are no screens capable of display to the operator.  I doubt there is enough power to drive something like the Litening AT.  The PC9 just doesnt have the smarts. 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain       10/19/2009 6:29:52 AM

I don't know that the PC9 could be flown with a designator.  There is no GPS/INS to provide precise targetting for the Pod.  There are no screens capable of display to the operator.  I doubt there is enough power to drive something like the Litening AT.  The PC9 just doesnt have the smarts.  


Why would you need a GPS/INS if you were spiking targets for LGB's? They rely entirely on homing in on reflected laser energy for their guidance, the designator doesn't need to know where it is for that. Keep in mind that there are man-portable laser designators about so a lightweight one for a PC-9 is quite plausible and if they were bussed for it it would just be a matter of fitting the appropriate screen that comes with the designator.
 
Quote    Reply

south2       10/19/2009 7:41:12 AM




I don't know that the PC9 could be flown with a designator.  There is no GPS/INS to provide precise targetting for the Pod.  There are no screens capable of display to the operator.  I doubt there is enough power to drive something like the Litening AT.  The PC9 just doesnt have the smarts.  






Why would you need a GPS/INS if you were spiking targets for LGB's? They rely entirely on homing in on reflected laser energy for their guidance, the designator doesn't need to know where it is for that. Keep in mind that there are man-portable laser designators about so a lightweight one for a PC-9 is quite plausible and if they were bussed for it it would just be a matter of fitting the appropriate screen that comes with the designator.

 
I know how an LGB works, and the problem is not with the LGB, it is with the designation. 
 
You cant just go spiking around randomly out the window with a handheld.  If you want to get an accurate designation from a moving aircraft it is going to have to be gyro stabilised for a starter.  Secondly you are going to need some method of confirming that it is pointing where you want it to make sure that you are lazing the Taliban hideout and not the mosque next door.  Lets say that it is attached to some sort of imaging pod, whether its FLIR/TV doesnt matter.
 
Now, you can try to find out where the bad guys are by just looking through the TV Camera, but I want to get the best out of these sort of things, so I want a better way of finding the target. If you dont know where you are looking, it is pretty handy to have a set of coordinates passed to you by whoever (old mate on the ground, some other ISR sensor, pre-strike planning whatever).  You plug these into your computer.  INS/GPS then works out a relative range, bearing, depression angle etc, and slews the pod to where the co-ordinates are.  Too easy.
 
So whilst you may (potentially) be able to get away without an INS, I dont see why you would bother.  There are many many other benefits to them, e.g calculating firing solutions for weapons i.e. releasing said LGB at an appropriate point in space.
 
Finaly, I'm still not convinced that the PC9 is wired for anything of the sort.
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       10/19/2009 3:33:11 PM
Finaly, I'm still not convinced that the PC9 is wired for anything of the sort.


 I'll ask one of the local RAAFies.  But I did prefix my prev with a cautionary caveat. :)

 

 

 
Quote    Reply

hairy man       10/19/2009 7:05:09 PM
I cant really imagine the RAAF giving up any aircraft with a fighting role.  However if we were to purchase some small freighter types, like the Nomad II, then the Army might be able control them.
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain       10/19/2009 7:05:44 PM
I guess we'll have to wait for GF to get back to us but it sounds entirely plausible to me. There are various lightweight airborne laser designators and navigation systems available, not to mention night vision gear, which the PC-9 could power if it was wired appropriately ... otherwise how would the Kiowa Warrior power all of its avionics systems?
I'd note however that an INS/GPS while being useful for these types of missions isn't critical. The purpose of a FAC is to get a good visual reference on a target for the fast movers and that used to be done with the likes of a O-1 Bird Dog and rockets. A laser designator is just a more modern alternative for target designation than a rocket is and isn't dependent on an advanced navigation system to operate.
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       10/19/2009 9:58:58 PM
update:

4 x PC9's tagged for FAC.  none are hardwired.

there has been a proposal to bring RAAF FAC inline with US FAC and that includes the potential to have them hardwired.

the hawk backseaters are glassed, with similar delivery capability built in at the wire level to a hornet

if incorrect, its the way I've interpreted the message rather than being given incorrect material.

it was a 2 minute discussion, so robust conversation unable to be conducted.
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5   NEXT



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2012StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy