• australianflyingcorps.org
  • archives 2002
  • archives 1999
  • tag cloud
  • login
  • register
  • write
  • Australian Flying Corps.
    A history of Australian aviation from 1914-1919 and much more.

    Comments

  • ajcooper . # .
    RAAF aircover for the RAN\'s frigates?: Agreed re the desirability of F-22s, but that\'s not likely to happen. As for the \'total waste of money\' represented by the AWDs, well that\'s quite a statement, & highly contestable. It\'s highly questionable if the RAAF\'s JSF force could ever provide the necessary air cover for RAN surface forces, unless the RAN combat groups just steamed about offshore from Darwin. The RAAF has never had a long range air superiority capacity in the past & the JSF is the wrong plane for the job anyway - too small, not enough range.
    With F-22s you\'d have some chance, but even then the harsh arithmetic of miles from base, hours airborne, shortage of available aircraft, & 24 hour days applies.
    Let\'s figure: say 2 squadrons of JSF up north, that\'s 30 serviceable aircraft max. Let\'s say 50% can be devoted to the maritime task, the others assigned recce/strike/continental air defence/readiness duties etc -so that\'s 15 aircraft available to cover the navy. Now fighters operate in pairs, so that\'s about eight 2-ship flights. 24 hours in the day, so that\'s one 2-ship despatched to cover the fleet every 3 hours. With one in-flight refuelling outbound and one inbound, each 2-ship might be able to do 3 hours on station overhead the ships. But at what distance from base? I\'d be surprised if these medium-sized fighters could achieve this duration at anything beyond 500 nm from home.
    The resultant scenario dictates that for any blue water ops, the RAN cannot rely on the RAAF. Even in brown water ops off the NW coast, is a single 2-ship really any protection against serious & sustained attack?
    Now I\'ve assumed a one sortie per aircraft per 24 hours. Let\'s now assume the RAAF could achieve twice this. That still only provides one 4-ship every 3 hours, & still only 500 nm from the coast. Factor in 800 nm from the coast, & the number, frequency, & duration of fighter cover diminishes.
    The RAN is dead right not to trust the RAAF to do the job, & is right to seek to whatever organic air defence capability it can afford & talk the cabinet into funding. Remember Crete?
  • Recent Comments
    Thanks Cam. (I'll forward your site on to Alex - ... Phil (article)
    Williams: Could you please define Williams\' beliefs in this context? ... (article)
    4 Sqn \'schism\': Please explain the schism you refer to. ... (article)
    RAAF aircover for the RAN\'s frigates?: Agreed re the desirability ... (article)
    Camel performance overstated?: The Camel\'s quoted performance figures are about ... (article)
    RE8 not so bad as it\'s cracked up to be?: ... (article)
    PC10 confusion: Yes, the quality control issues point to considerable ... (article)
    not yellow: \'Yellow\' is a term used very loosely. Surely ... (article)
    it\'s a shadow: In the top photo, of aircraft \'351, ... (article)
    Snipe performance not a matter of opinion: It doesn\'t matter ... (article)
    Richtofen\'s \'trick\': That story is totally apocryphal. Richtofen crept up ... (article)
    Milne Bay, Kokoda, & Guadalcanal: Obviously Milne Bay & Kokoda ... (article)
    Superior German aerofoils: The funny thing is that the Germans ... (article)
    German aircraft inferiority: Interesting. I\'ve always found the low quoted ... (article)
    Aces scoring: No surprise there. Yeats\' \'Winged victory\' is very ... (article)
    This article: also appears at hyperscale: 6AFC/RAAF and Kangaroo Roundel ... (article)
    When I did the original profile: seven years ago or ... (article)
    It is the AWM\'s retarded deep linking policy: that made ... (article)
    Apology: The above links have been hijacked by the worst ... (article)
    Photographic evidence: I don\'t suppose you can point us in ... (article)