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

[John Newman]

Keeping the super hornets could prove beneficial to Australia in the long term.

The only other air force in the world that will operate a mix of F-35s, Rhinos and Growlers will be the USN.

The USN of course isn't planning to replace its Super Hornets with the F-35 but rather with a 6th generation F-xx.

This could put the RAAF in a position to move into 6th generation aircraft technology far more quickly then would be the case if we buy an all F-35 force.

I think its way way to early to be thinking about 6th gen aircraft for the RAAF, its still 6-8 years away before the first Sqn of 5th gen F35's get to IOC!

Yes sure there are still questions around if we are we going to get the full compliment of 100 F35's or a mix of F35's and Super Hornets.

And I'm sure there are also questions around the USN having its own unique 6th gen aircraft program too.

I think gone are the days where each of the services in the US, Navy, Airforce and Marines could have their own unique figher or attack aircraft programe.

From what I've read the oldest of the USN Super Hornets will need to be replaced starting in the 2030s, ours will probably be closer to 2040, if kept in service that long and not replaced by the 4th sqn of F35's.

And of course the F35's not going to be replaced until closer to 2050.

So I don't necessarily see how having a "mixed-fleet" is going to get us to 6th gen a lot earlier than we may eventually will, assuming there is a 6th gen aircraft available!

And the other point is, I don't really think the RAAF would want to continue to be in a situation of having a mixed fleet, as it is going to face with operating both the F35 and Super Hornets for whatever period of time the Supers stay in service.

 

[jack412]

Been doing the rounds since March - common knowledge but Directors are taking the "commercial sensitivity issues" to heart.and literally

Dam, just when I was about to start a rumour that we are getting 7 growlers sets for an operational/training 6 growlers and will need to convert 9 SH to growler hardware/software specs and USN was going to forward deploy the 9 Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) SH aircraft here.
I guess they must be going to the ME instead
F/A-18E/F December 31, 2011 SAR
http://www.dod.gov/pubs/foi/logisti...EC 2011 SAR/F A-18E F - SAR - 31 DEC 2011.pdf

 

[ADMk2]

I see Youtube has become the new outlet of choice for minor RAAF news, such as AGM-158 JASSM declaring IOC in December 2011...

Joint Air-to-Surface Stand-off Missile (JASSM) - YouTube

 

[weegee]

Indonesia's Sukhoi SU-30

Hi guy's

I see that Indonesia has come to play at this years's pitch black using their SU-30's.
Have our guys come up against these aircraft before? especially with the legacy hornets? if so how did they go? and if not how will they go? It would be also interesting how the newer super Hornets go too?

 

[gf0012-aust]

Hi guy's

I see that Indonesia has come to play at this years's pitch black using their SU-30's.
Have our guys come up against these aircraft before? especially with the legacy hornets? if so how did they go? and if not how will they go? It would be also interesting how the newer super Hornets go too?

scenarios are scripted in DACT and these kinds of EX's so as to test concepts and outcomes.

they're not free fire events

 

[Bonza]

To expand on GF's point a little, in exercises like this, the point isn't to just go at it to see how the aircraft involved perform relative to one another. The point is to simulate certain kinds of threats and scenarios for training purposes. Thus it isn't about how a Super Hornet performs against an SU-30 in a merge, for example, it's about refining and validating operational and tactical ideas and methods.

So you might see the "red" force simulate a certain kind of threat that the "blue" force then responds to, for the purpose of training. You might also see Indonesian and Australian aircraft operating together, to test interoperability and provide pilots from both nations with experience in undertaking missions with dissimilar allied aircraft. It's more about operating with one another, and providing one another with training opportunities, than it is operating against one another for the purpose of validating aircraft performance in a vacuum.

 

[weegee]

Thanks for the info.
Are the scenarios even ? As in do all air forces get a turn in all scenarios? there seems to be a fair few players this time round.
Out of curiosity how do our legacy hornets stack up against what is currently available in SEA? Fairly well due to all their upgrades they have had up until now? or are they starting to show their age?
I suppose if you listen to the crazies at APA and how the F35 is not a match for SEA Russian made planes I suppose they would laugh at the capabilities of the legacy hornets in comparison especially if the F35 is outmatched and out gunned in their eyes. (I know this not to be true by the way)

 

[Bonza]

Thanks for the info.
Are the scenarios even ? As in do all air forces get a turn in all scenarios? there seems to be a fair few players this time round.
Out of curiosity how do our legacy hornets stack up against what is currently available in SEA? Fairly well due to all their upgrades they have had up until now? or are they starting to show their age?
I suppose if you listen to the crazies at APA and how the F35 is not a match for SEA Russian made planes I suppose they would laugh at the capabilities of the legacy hornets in comparison especially if the F35 is outmatched and out gunned in their eyes. (I know this not to be true by the way)

I'm not really sure on how the scenarios are distributed but I think they would most likely be subject to the program of the overall exercise, and I think the scenarios in which they participate would likely be determined to some extent by each nation's training and threat requirements. However this is just a guess based on my limited understanding of such exercises, other posters here might be able to give you a better idea.

In my opinion the legacy Hornets probably do quite well in meeting the needs of the RAAF relative to other air forces in the region. They've received quite a few upgrades, and with the Super Hornets and Wedgetail coming in, I think they'll remain relevant for long enough to meet the RAAF's needs. The Hornet is a very flexible platform, and the RAAF's models have significant additional gear, such as Link 16, JHMCS, ASRAAM, EW and countermeasure upgrades, and more recently JASSM IOC. All these contribute to make the Hornet more effective in its place within the larger air combat system. Things like Link 16 become even more significant with the addition of the Super Hornets and Wedgetail.

It's important not to lose sight of the fact that air power does not operate in a vacuum, and so supporting assets and non-kinetic upgrades, like datalinks, play an enormous part in the effectiveness of a platform. It's better to think of air combat as one aspect of a much larger picture, and the aircraft involved as pieces of a system designed to operate effectively in that picture.

There's no greater home of cherry picked data, assumption and outright fabrication than APA. They destroyed any credibility they had long ago and anything they say should be treated as highly suspect on general principles, as they have repeatedly shown themselves capable of abusing the trust of their readers and peers in order to pursue their personal fantasies. They are a sad joke and should be ashamed of themselves.

 

[jack412]

From what I saw on the net, US/AU legacy hornets are red force at Tindal and blue force is flying out of Darwin

here is a list
Pitch Black 2012 - Department of Defence

there is also a Facebook page
Exercise Pitch Black (27 Jul - 17 Aug) and RAAF Darwin Open Day(11Aug) 2012 | Facebook

pictures, you may need to refresh page
http://ra.af/PitchBlack12Pics

some youtube from 2010
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLE2BE44CC6D189329&feature=plcp

 

[gf0012-aust]

It's important not to lose sight of the fact that air power does not operate in a vacuum, and so supporting assets and non-kinetic upgrades, like datalinks, play an enormous part in the effectiveness of a platform. It's better to think of air combat as one aspect of a much larger picture, and the aircraft involved as pieces of a system designed to operate effectively in that picture.

Its going to be hard to talk about the PB scenarios as they are obviously classified.

General principles being that as the pressure builds options such as respawning for one team over another, rather than an automatic "lazarus" kick into play.

its more and more about fighting within various signature and waveform, spectrums,

as you've indicated, combat aircraft don't fight in a vacuum

 

[Marc 1]

I have also heard stories of participants not showing off all their toys/capabilities when operating with other airforces (even some supposedly "allied" forces). There are some cards that are better left unturned.

 

[ADMk2]

I have also heard stories of participants not showing off all their toys/capabilities when operating with other airforces (even some supposedly "allied" forces). There are some cards that are better left unturned.

No, that's why claims of plane A "defeated" plane B in Exercise ... should be taken with a grain of salt.

Firstly, these are never "free for all" events where every participant uses their full capability to try and "win".

Second of all, they are focussed on training outcomes. Not chest beating exercises. No Country (sane at least) spends billions on capability and millions in flying and exercising costs, so that they can announce they are "better" than some other capability. They do it to provide for the defence of their respective nation to the highest possible level.

The idea that the USAF F-22 and German Typhoons as announced recently just "went full at it with all the gloves off" and the German's "don't necessarily have to fear the F-22" is just fanciful.

But many will nonetheless use those sorts of claims to boost their own ego and pride in their national defence force...



Good luck to them. It only shows their immaturity and irrelevancy.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

No, that's why claims of plane A "defeated" plane B in Exercise ... should be taken with a grain of salt.

I think Marc may have been referring to a certain FPDA partner of Australia who sometimes takes emulation of their Israeli idols a bit too far… In terms of trying to keep capabilities secret and hands off to everyone else.

However there is definitely a pecking order in these sorts of exercises and who wins in any kind of fair play opportunity taken very seriously. Though these things are kept very much in house and away from wider public knowledge. Any RAAF pilot who let a Malaysian, Indonesian, Thai and even Singaporean fighter get gun camera footage of them in their sights in anything other than a very advantageous tactical setup for dissimilar BFM training would have some serious explaining to do to his CO.

But this just reinforces what is by far the most important issue in air combat: tactical advantage. Until the F-22 and F-35 came along any actual aircraft did not provide a significant figure level tactical advantage over its peers.

 

[MickB]

With the upcoming replacement of so much of the ADF's vehicles and equipment I was wondering as to the practicality of a state based "National Guard". I envisage this as having combat support units only. Full combat units to remain as part of the ADF's reserves. The combat support units would be of great value in both military and civil uses.

The outgoing equipment could be gifted to state "National Guard" units by the federal government. The upkeep to be jointly funded.

The state units to be tri-service manned. The units to serve the needs of their respective states unless called upon for a national emergency or war.

Such assets could include the C130Hs also Kiowa, Irioqui and Blackhawk helecopters. In addition there are the Navy LCHs and large numbers of Army trucks and 4x4s being replaced.

These state units could consist of an air wing, maritime wing, medical units, military police and field engineers.

All of these would be very useful assisting during natural disasters, casulty evacuation, fighting bushfires, water bombing, seach and rescue and assisting police during major events such as Commonwealth Games, CHOGM etc.

The lower operating tempo of the units would increase the service life of these assets, all of which will be available in time of war.

These units would also maintain the skillsets of a large number of retireing service members. Skills that cost a lot of money to obtain in the first place.
These skills would also be available in time of war.

 

[old faithful]

state national? which one,state gaurdor national gaurd. Who funds it. Tas is broke,NSW is broke,Qld is broke,the NT is cashed up, but has a total population of 200000, WA is cashed up and could be a State super power.
NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN,NEVER.

 

[Marc 1]

With the upcoming replacement of so much of the ADF's vehicles and equipment I was wondering as to the practicality of a state based "National Guard". I envisage this as having combat support units only. Full combat units to remain as part of the ADF's reserves. The combat support units would be of great value in both military and civil uses.

The outgoing equipment could be gifted to state "National Guard" units by the federal government. The upkeep to be jointly funded.

The state units to be tri-service manned. The units to serve the needs of their respective states unless called upon for a national emergency or war.

Such assets could include the C130Hs also Kiowa, Irioqui and Blackhawk helecopters. In addition there are the Navy LCHs and large numbers of Army trucks and 4x4s being replaced.

These state units could consist of an air wing, maritime wing, medical units, military police and field engineers.

All of these would be very useful assisting during natural disasters, casulty evacuation, fighting bushfires, water bombing, seach and rescue and assisting police during major events such as Commonwealth Games, CHOGM etc.

The lower operating tempo of the units would increase the service life of these assets, all of which will be available in time of war.

These units would also maintain the skillsets of a large number of retireing service members. Skills that cost a lot of money to obtain in the first place.
These skills would also be available in time of war.

Whilst I like the gist of your idea, cost would be the killer. All of the equipment you mention is shagged - and would cost an absolute bomb to keep them in a servicable state. As Old Faithful pointed out - not going to happen.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The outgoing equipment could be gifted to state "National Guard" units by the federal government. The upkeep to be jointly funded.

The state units to be tri-service manned. The units to serve the needs of their respective states unless called upon for a national emergency or war.

Part of the reason the states of Australia joined as a federation was so that they could pass on the responsibility for defence to the new government. Why they would want to duplicate it all over again is beyond be, even in dual use areas for disaster relief. Such a state based ‘national guard’ would offer no advantage over the current ADF reserves in every aspect that you list (and a few more you don’t).

There is a reason part (not all) of the US military reserves are still organised in state entities and it hasn’t been replicated in Australia. This reason is in the period from the Civil War to around WWII the state national guards were an important part of the local political systems for privilege and the like and the state governments strongly resisted attempts to centralise them as a national wide force.

As a point of interest it is actually legal for Australian states to form military units but they require approval from federal parliament to do so.

 

[ADMk2]

On top of all this, if we have all this money to put into additional defense capability, why not just put it into the struggling ADF?

 

[MickB]

state national? which one,state gaurdor national gaurd. .

I used the name of an existing organisation (National Guard) to give people an example of what I was talking about, everyone else seems to have been able to figure that out.

Seems the whole thing was not such a good idea, Fine that's why I ask questions to people who know more than me.

 

[t68]

On top of all this, if we have all this money to put into additional defense capability, why not just put it into the struggling ADF?

Extra dollars would be from the state not federally funded, which in turn would deplete resources from the SES not a good idea.