Chinese Su-32 Threat to Australia?

[Brit]

China is reportedly trying to acquire Su-34 Fullback (also commonly grouped as a Flanker for obvious reasons).



The fullback is akin to the Strike Eagle although arguably more of a ‘bomber’ (despite having good BVR AAM capability). Its export price is around $35m (airframe only?). A good site for info on it: http://jiatelin.jschina.com.cn/bomber/eng/su34.htm]



Crucially, it has a range of 4000km on internal fuel without refuelling (Strike Eagle with conformal tanks = 3800km, F111= 4700 (ferry not strike)).



By employing the Su-34 with in-flight refuelling and an air launched cruise missile (either one of several indigenous designs or AS-15 derivatives) Sydney comes within range of conventional attack (4500km from Southern China).



This is a few years in the future, but is it a threat that Australia could deal with easily if it materialises?

 

[Oqaab]

No threat to Australia if they are having fully loaded Hornets/SuperHornets. But I doubt those Hornets have improved avionics systems.

 

[webmaster]

Wasn't boeing suppose to upgrade the Aussie hornets under the "HUG" program launched in 98? AD/Gary?

 

[webmaster]

Here is something from Boeing's website on RAAF Hornet upgrade Prog:

17 Aug 1998 - Hornet Upgrade Program (HUG) launched.

Australia's Minister for Defence, Ian MacLachlan, announces that the RAAF will upgrade its Hornet fleet. The work will proceed under Project Air 5376, more commonly known as the Hornet Upgrade (HUG) Program, and is the fleet’s first major upgrade since it entered RAAF service. This upgrade will see the F/A-18A/B Hornets given an avionics configuration equivalent to the C/D-models. Boeing is the prime contractor for the program.

Jul 2004 - First two aircraft to be upgraded to HUG2.2 standard are received in US

The first two Hornets to undergo modifications for HUG Phase 2.2 arrive at the BASC at Cecil Field, Florida. Capability upgrades under Phase 2.2 include advanced systems such as Multifunctional Information Distribution System (MIDS); Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System (JHMCS); Tactical Aircraft Moving Map Capability (TAMMAC); and new Countermeasures Dispensing Systems (CMDS).

http://www.boeing.com.au/YearOfHornet/Timeline.html

 

[Pathfinder-X]

Even if the deal comes through, it doesn't neccessarily means that it directly threatens the security of Australia. As you know the current H-6 bombers operated by China are very much outdated and they are in need of replacements. Most likely bombers are going to be used against Taiwan when mainland attacks.

Secondly, how does the Su-34 pose a threat to Australia? There is no military hostility between the two countries at the moment, and even if there is, the bombers would have to fly through Malaysian and Indonesian air space which I doubt these two will allow. It'd be a different story if the buyer is Indonesia, but I fail to see how it will directly affect Australia if China aquires it.

 

[Aussie Digger]

The RAAF's AF/A-18A/B Hornets are in the process of being upgraded to beyond US Navy levels of capability for it's F/A-18A/B/C/D fleet. Australia's Hornets will in some respects be as capable as Block I Super Hornets (though obviously not in terms of range and weapons loads) but avionics wise they will be just as capable, once the current raft of upgrades (including a new targetting pod which will probably be ATFLIR) are complete.

An SU-34 WOULD be threat to Australia but only in a strategic sense. It's extremely unlikely that China could attack Australia from it's mainland with this aircraft. It is 4260 k's from Hong Kong (pretty close to the Southern most part of China) to Darwin (most Northern City in Australia). Darwin to Sydney is another 3150k's...

The USAF was required to provide 28 aerial tankers (flying at the same time) for the El Dorado Canyon bombing raid which was conducted (by the F-111's) over a range of 5500 miles (8800 kilometres). This was for a force of 24 USAF F-111's and 5 EF-111's which flew from the UK and 14 A-6E's and 12 A-7E's which flew off carriers in the Mediterranean (and obviously flew nowhere near as far as the F-111's). The F-111's were refuelled a total of 6 times each during this mission and the pilots flew for about 14 hours...

China is a LONG way off being able to mount a force of this size and the RAAF would be built up at the same time if China appeared likely to ever develop such a force.

In addition the ranges quoted above are the most direct route. China would either have to fly around our FPDA partners north of Australia or fight their way through their airspace. It's unlikely that our strategic situation would deteriorate so badly that China would be ALLOWED to fly through their airspace. (The USA wasn't even allowed to overfly France or Spain on the El Dorado raids, it's NATO partners) and if it did it would again be over a considerable period of time and our defences would be enhanced.

I believe the USAF has since conducted longer ranged missions in Afganistan and elsewhere since this mission due to basing issues etc, but then it has a force of over 500 A2A refuellers.

A 14000k (return) manned strike mission IS going to be beyond China for a VERY long time. I don't think it's THAT much cause for concern...

 

[Brit]

Excellent answer mate. The political factor is well put.

Mind you, I got the "4500km from Southern China to Sydney" by putting the Lat-Long cordinates of Macou and Sydney through an online distance calculator -so I'm confused how you came up with the seven odd thousand miles distance. Anyone able to double check the actual distance?

But say, hypothetically, that China desired to make a token strike on Australia. With the Su-34, AAR and a 1000km range cruise missile, they could strike Darwin from outside the meaningful defence range of Australia (?). That's really the nature of my query.

 

[Aussie Digger]

I used an online distance calculator to calculate the distance between Hong Kong and Darwin via latitude and Longtitude and it gave 4274. I just checked the distance between Zhanjiang (the most Southern AND Eastern major City in "mainland" China according to Atlapedia.com) and Darwin and it gave 4363k's... (geobytes.com/citydistance).

Sydney to Darwin using the same resources gives: 3153k's, hence by adding the 2 together you get a distance of 7427k's, "as the Crow Flies". Hence my rough estimation of a 14000k plus round trip...

As to the token strike question, possibly. Though a strike on the Oil and Gas platforms off the North West shelf would provide a much more tempting target IMHO. It's closer to China for one thing and likely to prove a much more devasting blow to Australia than a rather meaningless strike on a relatively small population centre of Australia. About all that would be worth striking in Darwin is Robertson Barracks at Palmerston, HQ of the Australian Army's
1 Brigade. The overall damage that a few long range missiles could cause to 1 Brigade would be limited however.

If they came a bit closer they could perhaps strike Tindal Air Force base, home of the RAAF's 75 Squadron (the major air defence unit of the Country) but a limited strike of a couple of missiles or so on Tindal would in effect be useless. It's widely dispersed and hidden in amongst heavy bush with heavy revetments for the jets, so the limited missiles the token strike could deploy would cause only limited actual damage in reality. A massive strike would need to be conducted on Tindal to heavily damage it.

Australia would be defending it's territory from a range of 1000k's or greater if this situation came to ahead though. They would have early warning of this attack from Jindalee OTHR and Wedgetail and the RAAF F/A-18's would be performing CAP's at extended distance from Australia supported by our own AAR's. In addition Australia would possibly have the capability to conduct retaliatory strikes with strike aircraft flying out of Butterworth... I couldn't see Australia getting into such a tangle with China, without our FPDA partners becoming involved as well, not to mention the USA...

 

[Supe]

Just on Tindal. Does the RAAF utilise hardened bunkers/shelters for its Fighter fleet?

 

[Brit]

At any rate the Su32/34 option wouldn't be 'choice' if some sort of raid was needed as all the mayor cities in Australia are within range of China's sub launched land-attack missiles.... but it's was an interesting hypothosis. Cheers.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Just on Tindal. Does the RAAF utilise hardened bunkers/shelters for its Fighter fleet?

At Tindal, yes. They are also widely dispersed and are (obviously) underground and scattered throughout the bush. RAAF Scherger at the top of Cape York is also built this way.

 

[Supe]

Thanks for that. I wasn't sure if the RAAF had hardened shelters to protect its fleet. The only base pics I've seen, feature maintenance crews working under a shed. I was hoping that wasn't the only protection they were affording multi-million dollar aircraft.

It would be great to see pics of the type of shelters used. Airconditioned and with a fully stocked bar?

 

[Brit]

Political targets seem easier than aircraft anyway -frankly destroying a few Hornets wouldn't be half as useful as hitting the parliament. Does Australia have any realistic way of intercepting a cruise missile in flight?

 

[Aussie Digger]

Thanks for that. I wasn't sure if the RAAF had hardened shelters to protect its fleet. The only base pics I've seen, feature maintenance crews working under a shed. I was hoping that wasn't the only protection they were affording multi-million dollar aircraft.

It would be great to see pics of the type of shelters used. Airconditioned and with a fully stocked bar?

It is illegal to photograph RAAF Tindal as it is one of the most top secret bases in Australia, hence the lack of photographs. I have deployed there before (on K-95) and the Officer's were VERY careful to ensure Tindal pics didn't end up in Digger's private collections.

RAAF operational bases DO have hardened shelters and revetments, others like Williamstown and Amberley either wouldn't be used in wartime or would be extensively "hardened" should war break out... Even Darwin airport has hardened revetments, you can see them when you fly into Darwin on civilian jets...

 

[Viggen]

What is top secret about Tindy???

It is a forward base and hence the snakepits are dispersed, however, that is normal for forward bases.

I've seen photos of the flightline and aerial shots. Not sure what is so secret about the home of the Marauding Maggies?

Also, what do you mean Amberley and Willy wouldn't be used in wartime?

Do you mean the assets would deploy away from the nest?

Besides, Amberley is the largest operational RAAF base in Oz and it is home to the former Strike Group (know ACC). very much important in any conflict.

Anyway, nothing much hardened at Amberley, the Pigs and Boos sit in the open or under carport style shelters (in the Pig's case). Even the old 501 building wasn't hardened and that is where RAMPs were undertaken. Obviously weps and fuel dumps are hardened and the snakepits have concrete revetments, but otherwise it's tin sheds all the way.

 

[Aussie Digger]

What is top secret about Tindy???

It is a forward base and hence the snakepits are dispersed, however, that is normal for forward bases.

I've seen photos of the flightline and aerial shots. Not sure what is so secret about the home of the Marauding Maggies?

Also, what do you mean Amberley and Willy wouldn't be used in wartime?

Do you mean the assets would deploy away from the nest?

Besides, Amberley is the largest operational RAAF base in Oz and it is home to the former Strike Group (know ACC). very much important in any conflict.

Anyway, nothing much hardened at Amberley, the Pigs and Boos sit in the open or under carport style shelters (in the Pig's case). Even the old 501 building wasn't hardened and that is where RAMPs were undertaken. Obviously weps and fuel dumps are hardened and the snakepits have concrete revetments, but otherwise it's tin sheds all the way.

What you've probably seen is all that is allowed to be shown by the Federal Government. There were a few such shots shown on the www.defence.go.au website last year. It basically showed just what you mentioned, a few tin sheds and a "taxi" area. It didn't show the hardened shelters etc that exist at Tindal.

If Australia was threatened it is most likely that the Air combat group would deploy to Tindal, Scherger and Learmonth to face the threat, unless a carrier group was sitting of the coast of NSW...

Williamstown and Amberley might be used for support functions etc, but they are too far away from where the threat would most likely be coming from to do anything about it. Why do you think our major air exes are up at the top end? Cause that's where they'll be fighting if push ever comes to shove...

 

[Jason_kiwi]

I would love to know what the chinese spy's are up to then. NZ had a problem recently with israely spies. If china did attack, I don't think OZ will be able to hold them off. NZ would probably send naval and land forces in to help out.

 

[Pathfinder-X]

I would love to know what the chinese spy's are up to then. NZ had a problem recently with israely spies. If china did attack, I don't think OZ will be able to hold them off. NZ would probably send naval and land forces in to help out.

Now that is just nonsense. Attacking Australia is tactical suicide even for a military as capable as the U.S. It is simply a logistical nightmare to support such an invasion.

Chinese spies in Australia are mostly keeping track of Falungong movement and gathering some intel of defence research projects. It is normal for one country to have spies in another, even allies.