Royal Australian Air Force [RAAF] News, Discussions and Updates

[phreeky]

If for any reason the F35 should fall over, taking too long to be available for instance, do we have a plan "B" ?

Based on how far the F-35 project has gone now I get the impression that, at least for the conventional take-off/landing variety, "falling over" entirely is pretty much impossible (especially once you consider who is relying on it succeeding). I'm sure there's a chance that some capabilities might not be quite what some were hoping for (as in all large projects).

Additionally, if the F-35 were to "fall over" then it wouldn't just be Australia looking for a solution.

I think it's safe to say that the F-35 is a fairly safe bet now. I'm not sure what projected production time frames are looking like these days, but I think an interim solution is probably all that's needed if things don't go as well as hoped (i.e. maybe more SH if required, and reducing airframe flight time of the classics where possible).

 

[ADMk2]

If for any reason the F35 should fall over, taking too long to be available for instance, do we have a plan "B" ?

More of these (with some appropriate enhancements) should provide all the capability we are likely to need if the JSF falls over (which it won't).

 

[phreeky]

Interestingly just saw this article: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter delays could force Australia to revert to Super Hornet

AUSTRALIA may be forced to purchase more Super Hornet fighter-bombers to prevent a capability gap in the nation's air defences if work on the Joint Strike Fighter is further delayed due to a new US military strategy and budget plan.

Ambassador to the US Kim Beazley, who received a comprehensive briefing from American officials about the changes, conceded production of the stealthy, multi-role JSF now named the F-35 Lightning II may be impacted by the shift to a leaner US military.

"The meaning of what the President (Barack Obama) and (US Defence Secretary Leon) Panetta have had to say for the F35 program is not that there won't be one but that perhaps in the long term the numbers might change and come down bit," Mr Beazley, former defence minister from 1984-90, told ABC News.

"I don't expect that out of this will emerge delays to a successful conclusion of the project but it may have an impact on the cost structure. The impact on delivery, paradoxically, will probably be quite useful."

I'm not sure how the cost thing works but it appears that less US orders = less orders to split dev costs therefore greater per unit price. So ultimately it's more of a cost thing rather than a time frame thing.

edit: So in other words the article title is rubbish, as the content somewhat contradicts that.

 

[ThePuss]

Sorry if this has been posted already as i never come here as I am a RAN/RNZN Thread zenophile . But I just saw a ABC NEWS video on massive budget cuts for the Yanks....with the F-35 having it's head on the block....So my Question is should we jump ship and by more Super Hornets (Like MR Beasly suggests in the video) but go even further that that and cancel our F-35 order in it's entirety....Would make sense to a simple sailor like myself!. The F-35 Seems like a pink elephant to me and the SH is a mature design with two DONKS!

 

[jack412]

That massive defense cut is ~7% annual over the 10 yrs and will mostly be from the army scaling down from Iraq and Guan. They have also said that defense budgets will still annually rise from this level.
To me it sounds like the defense cut you have when you aren't having a defense cut.

It's been said that the budget is a holding the LRIP's to about 30 for a few years to reduce concurrency costs, the schedule of 2016 finish SDD and IOC about 2018 hasn't been changed.

My guess is that we will slip our IOC to 2020 and won't need any more Shornets, we will find out this year when our review is released

 

[StevoJH]

My guess is that we will slip our IOC to 2020 and won't need any more Shornets, we will find out this year when our review is released

Can the A+ and B Hornets last another 10-15 years though?

 

[phreeky]

Can the A+ and B Hornets last another 10-15 years though?

Didn't we not go through with the centre barrel replacement because they worked out the classic hornet airframe time could be kept down by using the SHs now that we have those? I also vaguely recall seeing something about the airframes not being as bad as first thought. My memory is all a bit hazy on the issue though.

 

[jack412]

Can the A+ and B Hornets last another 10-15 years though?

some of them can be kept till 2021
Hornets can keep flying until JSF arrives - National News - National - General - The Canberra Times

 

[Jezza]

Probably cheaper in longrun to put off JSF. Buy down the track maybe 15years.
60 F18Es would suffice for the interim.:flaming

 

[ADMk2]

Probably cheaper in longrun to put off JSF. Buy down the track maybe 15years.
60 F18Es would suffice for the interim.:flaming

I said years ago, I'd be more than happy to have 3x Squadrons of Super Hornets / Growlers and a single squadron of F-35's ala F/A-18 / F-111.

Our main strategic role for our defence forces is Defence of Australia. To do this we need to maintain credible defence capabilities to deter or defeat a limited military attack against us.

A full scale invasion of Australia by a military power capable of projecting force against another nation state, thousands of kilometres from their homeland (which doesn't exist apart from that held by the USA) is not going to be deterred or defeated by an Air Force with 4 operational fighter squadrons of ANY aircraft. It doesn't matter whether it is equipped with Super Hornets, JSF, F-22A or F-111's.

What we need is a credible military capability designed to go up against "Tier 1" military threats, in Coalition with our allies, most particularly the USA. The USA is not "over stretched" by the War on Terror in the pathetic argument as advanced by some and nor is the Super Hornet or JSF a capability that is "non-credible" against another modern force.

Only the mix is the issue, IMHO and either would do a sufficiently adequate job for our purposes. An all JSF force would be better and probably cheaper than a mixed force, but if the schedule blows out too much and the cost of JSF increases too much, that might not matter.

Either way I'm happy, it might just be easier however to go with a majority Super Hornet / Growler force and use the F-35 in a "silver bullet" LO strike role in the short term.

 

[hairyman]

If it comes to the crunch and we do have to delay or put off ordering the F35 and decide to go for the Super Hornet, since any additional aircraft would be replacing F18C's, would we be ordering the single seat version of the Super Hornet to replace the single seat legacy Hornet?

 

[ADMk2]

If it comes to the crunch and we do have to delay or put off ordering the F35 and decide to go for the Super Hornet, since any additional aircraft would be replacing F18C's, would we be ordering the single seat version of the Super Hornet to replace the single seat legacy Hornet?

Probably E's due to crewing issues, but who knows for sure? They haven't even sent a letter of request yet...

 

[Jezza]

Wait and see. Wait for the USA cuts to defence.
Do we really need Stealth Fighters really??
As you said they would have to travel to get here, a 4th aegis awd would
be better for the defence of australia.

 

[Sea Toby]

Wait and see. Wait for the USA cuts to defence.
Do we really need Stealth Fighters really??
As you said they would have to travel to get here, a 4th aegis awd would
be better for the defence of australia.

There is probably a greater chance Australia will engage in combat somewhere else besides Australia.

Thirty years ago I would agree a fourth destroyer would be nice to have when one of the first three ships went into a long refit for significant upgrades with new equipment. But with a Aegis weapons control system all that is required in the future will be mostly software upgrades accomplished in a very short period of time. A fourth ship doesn't provide much more capability for the investment than three.

 

[t68]

There is probably a greater chance Australia will engage in combat somewhere else besides Australia.

Thirty years ago I would agree a fourth destroyer would be nice to have when one of the first three ships went into a long refit for significant upgrades with new equipment. But with a Aegis weapons control system all that is required in the future will be mostly software upgrades accomplished in a very short period of time. A fourth ship doesn't provide much more capability for the investment than three.

Sea Toby

Raise, train, SUSTAIN!! .
A fourth gives the RAN options on deployment and sustainability. Four gives you 2 ships to deploy with 1 working up 1in refit.

4 gives RAN a mirror fleet capability East and West if the fleet was split evenly. 4x Anzac’s, 2x Hobarts, 3x Collins, 1x LHD and 1x sealift ship plus 1x AOR.

Software for the Aegis Combat System might be plug and play for upgrades but the rest of the boat is certainly hardware and takes time in dry dock.
But this should be in the RAN thread not RAAF.

 

[Sea Toby]

Sea Toby

Raise, train, SUSTAIN!! .
A fourth gives the RAN options on deployment and sustainability. Four gives you 2 ships to deploy with 1 working up 1in refit.

4 gives RAN a mirror fleet capability East and West if the fleet was split evenly. 4x Anzac’s, 2x Hobarts, 3x Collins, 1x LHD and 1x sealift ship plus 1x AOR.

Software for the Aegis Combat System might be plug and play for upgrades but the rest of the boat is certainly hardware and takes time in dry dock.
But this should be in the RAN thread not RAAF.

A fourth ship in the triple cycle usually ends up being the ship which is cannibalized to sustain the other three. Once in a blue moon will you ever see the fourth ship, a second ship deployed abroad. That fourth ship still has to be maintained and crewed at considerable costs. For these reasons I said you don't get much more capability with an investment for a fourth ship. We are not talking about airplanes here with a handful of crew, destroyers have a crew of up to 200 personnel.

Its my opinion if you wish to deploy two abroad at the same time, you need six ships, not four.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Planes, Trains, Automobiles...

RAAF thread folks.
RAN topics should be in RAN threads

 

[t68]

Could the RAAF MRTT refuel helicopters such as HH-60, MH-53 and MH-47 in-flight or would the MRTT have to fly to slow and lose stability for the helicopters?

All refuelling photos I have seen have been either a combination of USAF, USMC variants of the KC-130 refuelling helicopters or fast jets, no KC-135 or KC-767 or similar aircraft.

A question for the KC-130J marines have an ISR/Weapons kit called Harvest Hawk with Hellfire or Griffin missiles and a fire control panel pallet inside for the WSO, can the KC-130J multi role doing both jobs at once when Harvest Hawk is on board or it cannot do the refuelling role as well?

File:KC-130s VMGR-152 refueling VFA-97 F-18Cs 2006.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

File:US Navy 030130-M-0000X-001 Two U.S. Marine Corps CH-53E Super Stallion helicopters assigned to Marine Heavy Helicopter Squadron-772 (HMM-772) receive fuel from a KC-130 Hercules.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

File:Harvest Hawk KC-130J with Hellfire.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

File:Harvest HAWK TSS.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

All this had me thinking if it would be beneficial if the remaining CH-47D upgraded to MH-47G standard and remaining C130H replaced with 4x KC130J plus Harvest Hawk and placed under SOCOMD.

File:MH-47.Chinook.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[south]

Helicopters will not be able to fly fast enough to tank off the MRTT.

There have been some people on some forums advocating for a KC-130 type capability and AAR capable helicopters. The need for this has probably reduced for most scenarios with the incoming LHD's

 

[t68]

Helicopters will not be able to fly fast enough to tank off the MRTT.

There have been some people on some forums advocating for a KC-130 type capability and AAR capable helicopters. The need for this has probably reduced for most scenarios with the incoming LHD's

My thinking is more along the lines that aircraft mentioned become purple assets under one commanded, but in the case of the KC-130J still has the ability to fit in with the rest of RAAF Tac-transport if and when needed. Tiger ARH can provide overwatch pending on time and distance the MH-47 mission requirements, but if the mission set is beyond the operational capability of Tiger KC-130J becomes overwatch and flying fuel tank.