Re: F-111 fleet flies into safety doubts

[The CO]

"L'acrobat" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Guy Alcala" > wrote in message
> .. .
> > The CO wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > Again, we have nothing in our inventory
> > > that can do PR as well as the F111, or do you want to go shopping
for a
> > > U2 or something similar?
> >
> > Not disputing your main points, but the RAAF hopes to acquire Global
Hawk
> > for that mission.
>
> It is quite possible that they will not be aquired until about the
time that
> the F-111 is due to retire.

It's arguably the best replacement in the pure recon role.

The CO

[L'acrobat]

"The CO" > wrote in message
...

> > It is quite possible that they will not be aquired until about the
> time that
> > the F-111 is due to retire.
>
> It's arguably the best replacement in the pure recon role.

Quite possibly.

But the F-111 is due to retire by 2015 and AFAIK they have not even started
a project to procure Global Hawk yet.

[L'acrobat]

"L'acrobat" > wrote in message
...
>
> "The CO" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > > It is quite possible that they will not be aquired until about the
> > time that
> > > the F-111 is due to retire.
> >
> > It's arguably the best replacement in the pure recon role.
>
> Quite possibly.
>
> But the F-111 is due to retire by 2015 and AFAIK they have not even
started
> a project to procure Global Hawk yet.

Whilst not specifically a project to procure Global Hawk, Air 7000 is
looking at it -

http://australianit.news.com.au/articles/0,7204,6678886%5E15319%5E%5Enbv%5E15306,00.html

ASYLUM-seekers and illegal fishing vessels are the targets of a likely $150
million investment in the Global Hawk pilotless spy plane.

Global Hawk has been slotted into the Defence Department's Project Air 7000
plan as a partial replacement for the Air Force's AP-3C Orion.
Officially classified as an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), Global Hawk can
stay airborne for 36 hours, scanning an area the size of Tasmania in 24
hours.

It hit the headlines in 2001 when it flew non-stop between the US and
Australia.

Orions are now used for surveillance along Australia's northern maritime
border.

Project Air 7000 is exploring replacements, including UAVs.

------------------------------

The AP-3C Orions are due to retire around 2025, you would expect Global Hawk
(or follow ons) to start supplimenting them by around 2015/2020 if they were
to replace them by 2025

[RT]

L'acrobat wrote in message ...
>http://australianit.news.com.au/articles/0,7204,6678886%5E15319%5E%5Enbv%5E
15306,00.html
>
>ASYLUM-seekers and illegal fishing vessels are the targets of a likely $150
>million investment in the Global Hawk pilotless spy plane.
>
>Global Hawk has been slotted into the Defence Department's Project Air 7000
>plan as a partial replacement for the Air Force's AP-3C Orion.
>Officially classified as an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), Global Hawk can
>stay airborne for 36 hours, scanning an area the size of Tasmania in 24
>hours.

Eh? Taswegia? Taswegia = approx 26k sq miles
(www.goway.com/downunder/australia/tasmania/) however the Global Hawk is
supposed to be able to scan 40k sq miles in 24 hours
.............(www.fas.org/irp/program/collect/n19991026_991973.htm )

[L'acrobat]

"RT" > wrote in message
...
>
> L'acrobat wrote in message ...
>
>http://australianit.news.com.au/articles/0,7204,6678886%5E15319%5E%5Enbv%5E
> 15306,00.html
> >
> >ASYLUM-seekers and illegal fishing vessels are the targets of a likely
$150
> >million investment in the Global Hawk pilotless spy plane.
> >
> >Global Hawk has been slotted into the Defence Department's Project Air
7000
> >plan as a partial replacement for the Air Force's AP-3C Orion.
> >Officially classified as an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), Global Hawk
can
> >stay airborne for 36 hours, scanning an area the size of Tasmania in 24
> >hours.
>
> Eh? Taswegia? Taswegia = approx 26k sq miles
> (www.goway.com/downunder/australia/tasmania/) however the Global Hawk is
> supposed to be able to scan 40k sq miles in 24 hours
> ............(www.fas.org/irp/program/collect/n19991026_991973.htm )

Your reference has probably left out the offshore islands and the area
between them and the main island (Tasmania).

It's a common mistake the state of Tasmania isn't an island, it's an island
group.

[The CO]

"L'acrobat" > wrote in message
...

> The AP-3C Orions are due to retire around 2025, you would expect
Global Hawk
> (or follow ons) to start supplimenting them by around 2015/2020 if
they were
> to replace them by 2025

I'll be interested to see what is going to replace the P3's. More P3's
or will they look at
Nimrod again? Getting the TAP3's to keep the hours down on the
operational fleet seems
to have been a very good idea.

The CO

[The CO]

"L'acrobat" > wrote in message
...
>
> "The CO" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "L'acrobat" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> > > The AP-3C Orions are due to retire around 2025, you would expect
> > Global Hawk
> > > (or follow ons) to start supplimenting them by around 2015/2020 if
> > they were
> > > to replace them by 2025
> >
> > I'll be interested to see what is going to replace the P3's. More
P3's
> > or will they look at
> > Nimrod again? Getting the TAP3's to keep the hours down on the
> > operational fleet seems
> > to have been a very good idea.
>
> They seem keen on at least partially replacing them with UAVs

That would make sense for the surveillance role.
There could be huge savings over the present setup assuming the quality
of surveillance
can be matched by the UAVs.
That leaves the ASW/Maritime strike component. Smaller quantity of
replacements,
ie new Orions or Nimrod?
I'm aware of UAVs being fitted for air/ground strike (on a small scale)
but I don't recall
any attempt at an ASW UAV being made. Given the complexity of systems
like Global
Hawk I suppose it would be possible, but I'm less sure it would be an
economic proposition
compared to more conventional methods.


The CO

[L'acrobat]

"The CO" > wrote in message
...

> > They seem keen on at least partially replacing them with UAVs
>
> That would make sense for the surveillance role.
> There could be huge savings over the present setup assuming the quality
> of surveillance
> can be matched by the UAVs.
> That leaves the ASW/Maritime strike component. Smaller quantity of
> replacements,
> ie new Orions or Nimrod?
> I'm aware of UAVs being fitted for air/ground strike (on a small scale)
> but I don't recall
> any attempt at an ASW UAV being made. Given the complexity of systems
> like Global
> Hawk I suppose it would be possible, but I'm less sure it would be an
> economic proposition
> compared to more conventional methods.

I believe the RAAF has an exchange officer in the US Multi Mission Maritime
Aircraft project (follow on to Orion)

[David Bromage]

The CO wrote:
> I'll be interested to see what is going to replace the P3's. More P3's
> or will they look at Nimrod again?

A lot of forces operate the P-3 so the issue is not unique to the RAAF.
Where are you going to get at least equal capbility when it's time to
replace them.

Boeing looked at doing a Nimrod job on the 757 but nobody would pay for
the development. I wonder if there is sufficient development in the
E-10A to make a "P-10" worthwhile?

Lockmart have looked at an ASW version of the C-130J. Could they even
build more Orions?

Perhaps the P-7 could be revived?

Cheers
David

[L'acrobat]

"David Bromage" > wrote in message
.. .
> The CO wrote:
> > I'll be interested to see what is going to replace the P3's. More P3's
> > or will they look at Nimrod again?
>
> A lot of forces operate the P-3 so the issue is not unique to the RAAF.
> Where are you going to get at least equal capbility when it's time to
> replace them.
>
> Boeing looked at doing a Nimrod job on the 757 but nobody would pay for
> the development. I wonder if there is sufficient development in the
> E-10A to make a "P-10" worthwhile?
>
> Lockmart have looked at an ASW version of the C-130J. Could they even
> build more Orions?
>
> Perhaps the P-7 could be revived?

If you were starting a project now, you'd probably look at the B767 airframe
as the basis for purely logistic reasons.

[David Bromage]

L'acrobat wrote:
> "David Bromage" > wrote in message
> .. .
>>A lot of forces operate the P-3 so the issue is not unique to the RAAF.
>>Where are you going to get at least equal capbility when it's time to
>>replace them.
>
> If you were starting a project now, you'd probably look at the B767
airframe
> as the basis for purely logistic reasons.

I know the 767 will be the airframe for a lot of tankers, but it seems
overly big for an ASW platform. That's why I suggested the 757. It will
be the basis of the E-10A, on which the big radar is in the right place
for a torpedo bay. But you'd use the same engines and avionics whether
it was a 757 or 767, which is the main logistic advantage. They have a
common type rating anyway.

Cheers
David

[L'acrobat]

"David Bromage" > wrote in message
.. .
> L'acrobat wrote:
> > "David Bromage" > wrote in message
> > .. .
> >>A lot of forces operate the P-3 so the issue is not unique to the RAAF.
> >>Where are you going to get at least equal capbility when it's time to
> >>replace them.
> >
> > If you were starting a project now, you'd probably look at the B767
> airframe
> > as the basis for purely logistic reasons.
>
> I know the 767 will be the airframe for a lot of tankers, but it seems
> overly big for an ASW platform. That's why I suggested the 757. It will
> be the basis of the E-10A, on which the big radar is in the right place
> for a torpedo bay. But you'd use the same engines and avionics whether
> it was a 757 or 767, which is the main logistic advantage. They have a
> common type rating anyway.

Apparently the Boeing 737 is the proposed MMMA airframe