Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Australia Discussion Board
   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

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5   NEXT
south2       10/20/2009 4:29:52 AM

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.
 

Aussie Gunner, can you please provide a link to these lightweight, airborne designators for me.  This isnt as a challenge/pissing contest, I'm just curious myself. 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain       10/21/2009 2:50:49 AM




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.

 




Aussie Gunner, can you please provide a link to these lightweight, airborne designators for me.  This isnt as a challenge/pissing contest, I'm just curious myself. 


 
No worries. You will see in the first link below that the entire sensor suite in the Predator only weighs 450lb and includes a laser rangefinder/designator, FLIR and a SAR. While a PC-9 mounted system would need a pod which would weigh extra the SAR wouldn't be fitted so it would probably come out about the same weight.
 
Here is an example of the types of laser which could be used. If you google "lightweight airbourne laser" you will come across more examples.
 
 
Quote    Reply

south2       10/21/2009 7:43:19 AM
Sorry mate but I think you are underestimating the complexity of a modern targetting pod and overestimating the ability of the PC9.
 
The PC9 is in reality not much more than a bugsmasher with an oversized donk.
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain       10/21/2009 7:54:19 AM

Sorry mate but I think you are underestimating the complexity of a modern targetting pod and overestimating the ability of the PC9.

 The PC9 is in reality not much more than a bugsmasher with an oversized donk.



The Predator is in reality just an oversized RC model and it manages to carry that sort of gear.
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain       10/21/2009 8:02:31 AM

Sorry mate but I think you are underestimating the complexity of a modern targetting pod and overestimating the ability of the PC9.

 The PC9 is in reality not much more than a bugsmasher with an oversized donk.


Take a look at these links about the Super Tucano which is basically exactly the same class of aircraft as a PC-9. It shows conclusively that a FLIR and laser designator equiped targetting pod can be fitted to "a bugsmasher with an oversized donk".
 
End of discussion, I'm not going to keep pointing to the obvious as I did with the Predator example just to have it ignored.
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain    links   10/21/2009 9:30:55 AM
 
The Super Tucano's FLIR/Laser designator
 
 
More on the Super Tucano
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain    links   10/21/2009 9:36:22 AM
>>
 
Quote    Reply

south2       10/21/2009 3:29:27 PM
Sorry mate but I think you are underestimating the complexity of a modern targetting pod and overestimating the ability of the PC9.
 
The PC9 is in reality not much more than a bugsmasher with an oversized donk.
 
Quote    Reply

south2       10/21/2009 3:36:17 PM
yeah and have a look at the systems onboard the Super Tucano (Missionized computers, INGPS, full glass cockpit, mil std information busses), beefed uppower supplies available.  The Predator has similar systems, albeit driven from a console 20000km away.
 
The PC9 has nothing, because it wasnt designed with that sort of stuff inmind. 
 
PC21, AT6, Super Tucano, I do agree, will be able to do what you say.  Just because it looks the same, doesnt mean it is the same on the inside.
 
 
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       10/22/2009 6:25:51 AM
So I was right on the PC-9 but not on the Hawk.  I was under the impression that the Hawk had a radar emulator and other training systems and as a result could not be armed as the Hawks of other airforces could, glad I was wrong.
 
On the light weight sensor packages the MC-12W is fitted with an adaption of the Predators payload, so considering it needs a KingAir to use it, it probably would be too much for a PC-9.
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5   NEXT



 Latest
 News 		  Most
 Read 		  Most
 Commented		  Hot
 Topics