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

[John Newman]

I will probably be shot down in flames for suggesting this ... but would we be better off with an all Superhornet fleet?

What if we were to buy 48 extra super hornets instead of the 24 currently being planned and run with a stripped back fighter capability of 72 superhornets until the early 2030s. The SH should still be competitive in this region until that time.

We could then start buying the F-35s from the early 2030s .

There would be no money spent on a midlife upgrade for the SHs because they will be retired after 20 years, the F-35 will be fully debugged and be at the cheapest point in its production cycle, and the RAAF will have a single airframe in service rather than a mix of SH and F-35s.

Hauritz,

You may or may not get shot down in flames here for that idea.

But if we do get into a shooting match somewhere in the 2030's against someone with 5th gen aircraft, it will most likely be the RAAF pilots who are getting shot down in their 4th gen Super Hornets!!!!!

Still think its a good idea??

 

[hauritz]

Hauritz,

You may or may not get shot down in flames here for that idea.

But if we do get into a shooting match somewhere in the 2030's against someone with 5th gen aircraft, it will most likely be the RAAF pilots who are getting shot down in their 4th gen Super Hornets!!!!!

Still think its a good idea??

There aren't any fifth generation fighters in this region yet and I doubt we will see them until the 2030s by which time we should start getting the latest version of the F-35.

 

[Volkodav]

I suppose the advantage of a mixed fleet is when the F-35C/D/E/F etc. become available we can buy them to replace the SHs there by avoiding the block obsolescense issues that have dogged us in the past.

 

[Milne Bay]

This whole letter of request for an additional Super Hornets does not commit the government to anything. It is starting to smell like a political play by the current government to put some paper credibility on their defence management.
Consider the belt tightening that has gone on in all depts to fund their promised budget surplus. Defence has had to make a major contribution to this cause and we have the laughable situation of so many ships from the RAN either broken or in extended readiness that there is so little at-sea time and training taking place - why - to save money.
By initiating this correspondence re the additional 24 SH's the gov't can look like it is doing something without doing anything at all.
This is IMHO putting the best spin on things. If they are serious about the additional SH's, it calls into question the very basics of defence management and the ability of this gov't to plan to manage and manage the plan

Either way, this announcement of additional SH's is bad news in my book.

 

[Bonza]

I am a bit confused. Were'nt we originally buying the F35 as a strike aircraft, to replace the F111? Now we have bought the Super Hornet as a strike aircraft, actually replacing the recently retired F!!!. Does that mean the F35 is now going to be our fighter, replacing the classic hornets? Either that or they all are going to be strike aircraft, with nothing in the category of fighter.

Both the F-35 and the Super Hornet are quite capable in air to air combat. They're multi-role aircraft, like pretty much all modern Western combat jets. If I remember correctly, I've read extremely positive pilot comments on the use of the Block II Super Hornet in air combat training, particularly with regard to the APG-79 AESA, apparently quite the game changer compared to the Block I, along with its datalinking capabilities and updated avionics systems developed partially from systems intended for the X-32, Boeing's failed entrant in the JSF competition. The Block II Super should definitely not be counted out in air to air scenarios.

As for the F-35, well, full LO capability, internal weapons carriage, extremely modern sensors, electronics, and datalinking systems, all mated to a powerful engine - of course it's going to do well in air to air combat.

When it comes to modern warplanes the terms "fighter" and "strike" are by no means mutually exclusive... just look at the F-16, that started life as a lightweight fighter and now it can and has demonstrated its ability to perform CAS, strike and SEAD missions in addition to both BVR combat and dogfighting...

 

[John Newman]

It’s going to end up a real dog’s breakfast if the purchase goes ahead.

I’m sure, as most of us here do, suspect this has more to do with the Defence Budget and the Government appearing to do something rather than nothing, more so than any other reason to do with delays to the F35 or issues with the Classic fleet.

I started to also suspect it was also a way to try and reduce the number of active Squadron’s in the RAAF too, eg, further savings, but that doesn’t seem to work out.


If you look at the current structure there are six Sqns, 4 Classic (incl No 2 OCU) and 2 Shornets (6 Sqn being the training Sqn for 1 Sqn).

Originally as I understood it, if all 100 F35A’s had been purchased we would have ended up with five Sqns, four operational and one training, probably/maybe for example, 6 Sqn would have disbanded.

With the decision this year to also have 6 Sqn equipped with Growlers, and if all the 100 F35A’s did go through, we are back up to six, 4 operational + OCU + Growler, and not forgetting too that aircrew training for Shornet is going back to the USN when the Growler conversion starts, that would probably continue after the Shornets are gone with the continued need for Growler aircrew training.

We would then have six here plus Growler aircrew training in the USA too!

So if that had happened, the original plan + Growlers, the Government could have then use some of the 12 “retired” F/A18F’s for in country Growler aircrew training, buddy tanking role and/or as an attrition/spares reserve for the Growlers too.


So what happens if this bad dream does come true and the order for 24 Super Hornets goes ahead, what does the structure possibly look like then? (assume the purchase is 18E’s and 6 F’s).

Three Sqns of up to 48 F35A’s, two operational, an OCU, plus some attrition aircraft.

One Sqn of 12 Growlers (6 Sqn)

One Sqn of 12 F model Shornets (1 Sqn)

One Sqn of 12 E model Shornets (replaces one of the Classic Sqns)

That leaves 6 E’s and 6 F’s for training and attrition for the E/F Shornets and Growlers, perhaps it makes up another training Sqn, (don’t have to train aircrews for Shornets/Growlers by the USN).

That now brings it up to 7 Sqns!!


I just hope it all goes away and next year the Government confirms its commitment to the F35A.

This is giving me a headache thinking how it could possibly work, I think I need a drink or five! Cheers!

 

[hauritz]

Oh it will be a mess all right.

One squadron will have aircrew training in growlers, another aircrew training in F-18F in the strike roll while the F-18E pilots will be learning to be fighter Jocks. Then you will no doubt have a whole bunch of pissed off superhornet pilots that will feel slighted by not being selected to train in the F-35.

Then there is the headache of aircraft sustainment when you are operating 2 different airframes in at least 4 different marks.

 

[colay]

There aren't any fifth generation fighters in this region yet and I doubt we will see them until the 2030s by which time we should start getting the latest version of the F-35.

What about a scenario where the RAAF is called upon to participate in a future joint military operation outside this region? Not necessarily going up against a 5Gen foe, but against the more likely threat of an advanced SAM which are proliferating and lethal against current generation aircraft.

 

[John Newman]

Oh it will be a mess all right.

One squadron will have aircrew training in growlers, another aircrew training in F-18F in the strike roll while the F-18E pilots will be learning to be fighter Jocks. Then you will no doubt have a whole bunch of pissed off superhornet pilots that will feel slighted by not being selected to train in the F-35.

Then there is the headache of aircraft sustainment when you are operating 2 different airframes in at least 4 different marks.

Thats exactly right.

Even if it was 24 F's and not a mixed purchase of E and F as I suggested there are still problems.

Yes 24 is the equivalent of two Sqn's but one of those would have to be set up as a training Sqn for both the existing 1 Sqn and the replaced Classic Sqn, plus basic aircrew training for the Growlers too.

The other issue with 24 F's is that the back seat needs to be filled, that's another 24 aircrew that has to be found and trained, more money!!

 

[south]

Back seat doesn't need to be filled and E/F doesn't necessarily translate to air to air and strike. They are a multi role platform, the same way that classics performed strikes and dca during falconer

 

[hairyman]

:Another way out would be to buy all 100 F35's. Buy an aircraft carrier, and give all the Super Hornets to the Navy.


I am sure the government will be all over this one.:

 

[SpudmanWP]

I happen to know of one coming on the market

USS Enterprise (CVN-65) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[gf0012-aust]

:Another way out would be to buy all 100 F35's. Buy an aircraft carrier, and give all the Super Hornets to the Navy.


I am sure the government will be all over this one.:

The Govt only wants to be able to fly non fixed wing that can double hat as HR (and primarily HR) from the phatships

The Tigers will be a luxury item

 

[Volkodav]

The Govt only wants to be able to fly non fixed wing that can double hat as HR (and primarily HR) from the phatships

The Tigers will be a luxury item

Paint it orange and call it a larger border protection and distaster relief ship and they will snap it up. Any way we could rig the SHs to drop humanitarian aid?

 

[jack412]

I was just doing a bit of Xmas reading when I saw this, I wasn't aware there was nearly a 100% increase in cost, dam lucky we didn't have the internet experts on procurement back then.

http://www.anao.gov.au/~/media/File...t Report 5/201213 Audit Report No 5 OCRed.pdf
2.2 The 75 aircraft entered service in Australia between 1985 and 1990.26
The initial approved budget for the 75 F/A‐18 aircraft was $2.43 billion (August
1981 prices), but by the time all the aircraft were received, the cost amounted to
some $4.6 billion (June 1990 prices).

 

[ADMk2]

Final assembly of the first C-27J Spartan for the Royal Australian Air Force started

Just a snappy RAAF C-27J update.

Press release - Alenia Aermacchi

The fuselage of the first C-27J for the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) has arrived at the Alenia Aermacchi Turin plant for final assembly.

Manufactured at Alenia Aermacchi’s Capodichino Naples site, the fuselage, reached Turin both by truck (from Capodichino to the Port of Naples and from Genoa to Turin) and sea freight (from Naples to Genoa).

The Australian order for 10 aircraft was placed through the US Foreign Military Sales Joint Cargo Aircraft program last May.

The first C-27J will arrive in Australia in early 2015, and will be used for tactical airlift. They will replace the piston-engine Caribou, which were retired in 2009 after 45 years of service.

In the tactical transport role, the C-27J provides the best possible integration with the existing Australian Defence Force fleet. It will provide an airlift capability between the CH-47 Chinook and C-130J Hercules, as well as integrating with the much larger C-17A Globemaster.​

 

[t68]

Final assembly of the first C-27J Spartan for the Royal Australian Air Force started

Just a snappy RAAF C-27J update.

.​

That’s good to see, is there any explanation how they came up with the final figure of 10 aircraft and not 12?

 

[the road runner]

Nice picture AD.

One thing i have wondered is when the caribou was retired in 2009 and the C-27 due in
2015,what have the ex caribou pilots been doing in the mean time? Did they go onto C-17 or Trained up on the C-130 Js?

I have assumed they went to the C-130J Squadron ,as the C-27 and C-130J have very similar cockpits?

 

[ADMk2]

Nice picture AD.

One thing i have wondered is when the caribou was retired in 2009 and the C-27 due in
2015,what have the ex caribou pilots been doing in the mean time? Did they go onto C-17 or Trained up on the C-130 Js?

I have assumed they went to the C-130J Squadron ,as the C-27 and C-130J have very similar cockpits?

Cheers.

38 Squadron (the ex-Caribou unit) converted to the King Air 350 for training, light transport and liaison missions and "other" (ie: special mission - surveillance) taskings, so many of it's staff would have stayed and converted onto the new type.

I imagine some of the pilots, loadmasters etc converted onto those other types as well and some may have retired or be posted at "Brown Bomber" seats (desks...).

 

[ADMk2]

That’s good to see, is there any explanation how they came up with the final figure of 10 aircraft and not 12?

Undoubtedly a combination of available resources as well as numbers required to sustain a similar capability to what we had.

From recollection, the 10 C-27J fleet will be undertaking the tasking that 8 C-130H aircraft performed after the Bous were retired.

It does seem a strange figure given other RAAF airlift squadrons are 6 or 12 strong, but then we see Army buying 7 CH-47F Chinooks and RAAF bought 5 KC-30A, so the numbers in reality are all over the place and don't mean much.

I expect they buy the number of platforms that meets a minimum level of directed capability and fits within the allocated budget, though with some projects there's clearly scope or the flexibility to maximise the number of platforms or assets acquired.

An obvious example of this that sticks out is the advanced targetting pod capability acquired during the Hornet upgrade.

From recollection, choosing the Litening AT pod, allow us to acquire 41 targetting pods, whereas the Sniper XR pod, would have resulted in us only being able to acquire 32 pods or so (can't remember the exact figure, but it was quite a few less pods overall) and this was the major reason why we chose Litening AT for the HUG.

Both met our requirements, but Litening AT allowed us more capability overall within our budget.