My understanding is the RAAF is trying to classify the as an ISR asset rather than an air combat or strike asset and as such retain them as a separate capability along the lines of the P-8 etc.
Royal Australian Air Force [RAAF] News, Discussions and Updates
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Regarding the PM's comments yesterday about the option of the 4th Sqn where he said '18', I put the question to Andrew McL and Gerard Frawley from Australian Aviation magazine.
Gerard (who was at the press conference) replied:
"I am assured the PM fluffed his maths and the Phase 2C planned buy remains 28 jets. Gerard".
Gerard (who was at the press conference) replied:
"I am assured the PM fluffed his maths and the Phase 2C planned buy remains 28 jets. Gerard".
Here are a couple of links to Youtube videos of an ABC interivew with Dr John Blaxland, I would have to say without a doubt the best explanation, not just in an Australian context, about the JSF purchase and what it actually means as a part of the "System"
I would like to see more of this type of interview, but a bit more aggression de-bunking the detractor's and their tunnel vision arguments, would love to see a debate between Dr Blaxland and he who shall remain nameless
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKk1WtKMrnU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZMAxFQBC_c
Part 1 and 2
Cheers
I would like to see more of this type of interview, but a bit more aggression de-bunking the detractor's and their tunnel vision arguments, would love to see a debate between Dr Blaxland and he who shall remain nameless
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKk1WtKMrnU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZMAxFQBC_c
Part 1 and 2
Cheers
knightrider4
Active Member
F-35
Yes great to hear we have finally signed on the dotted line. This will elevate the RAAF to a level of capability that we as a nation deserve.
F-35's are appearing in air shows from July this year onwards. I don't think it too far fetched that we may see one at Avalon next year...
John Newman
The Bunker Group
An article on the Australian Aviation website today stated that Turkey has approved the order of their first two (of the still planned 100) F-35A's and they will be produced in LRIP-10.
Certainly more good news for the F-35 program after the news two weeks ago of Australia's further commitment for another 58, should be an interesting year if more countries start making commitments too.
One interesting point that came up after a few comments, was the comment by Andrew McL from AA about the production of the RAAF's aircraft and how we will get to the full fleet of 72 by 2023, as the PM stated recently, Andrew said:
"The RAAF buy profile is the current 2 from LRIP 6, then eight jets in LRIP 10 (2018 delivery), 15 in LRIP 11 (2019), then MYP annual batches of 15, 15, 15, & two to get to 72 in 2023.
Phase 2C will look at two additional batches of 13 and 15 if and when that time comes."
Interesting to see if it actually all works out to that plan!
Certainly more good news for the F-35 program after the news two weeks ago of Australia's further commitment for another 58, should be an interesting year if more countries start making commitments too.
One interesting point that came up after a few comments, was the comment by Andrew McL from AA about the production of the RAAF's aircraft and how we will get to the full fleet of 72 by 2023, as the PM stated recently, Andrew said:
"The RAAF buy profile is the current 2 from LRIP 6, then eight jets in LRIP 10 (2018 delivery), 15 in LRIP 11 (2019), then MYP annual batches of 15, 15, 15, & two to get to 72 in 2023.
Phase 2C will look at two additional batches of 13 and 15 if and when that time comes."
Interesting to see if it actually all works out to that plan!
Just coming back to this - is the latest bunch a lease or a purchase?
I can't seem to find anything clarifying this. The first purchase was a lease, (sort of) the second is generally described as a purchase. However, Boeing and expressed that it will entertain many options and there may be a buy back clause for countries interested in SH. But Australia may see fit to use them up putting 4th squadron off until 2030.
Link
Australian Government documents describe it as a purchase:
Link
I would assume by ~2025 the F-35 would make one heck of a ISR platform, its been put forward for years that the F-35 shouldn't be thought of just as a Fighter/strike platform, but as a ISR platform as well and work was being done to integrate sensor information in the ISR space.
Link
Link
I would imagine by 2025 a F-35 would be approaching or exceeding levels of EW/ISR that a growler could offer as well as being 1 type and cheaper to operate/upgrade than F-18 SH. Particularly with future developments after 2025 which growler wouldn't be receiving.
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Your points bring up an interesting list of questions and possibilities.
With the original plan to only operate the Super Hornets for 10 years (then return them) having gone out the window for now, and as it appears they will be retained in service for at least 20 years, the question is, is there still any value in sending them back to the US when they are that age? Or do they have to go back regardless of age anyway?
The other point you mentioned, and have suggested, is that around 2025 the F-35 will be approaching or exceeding the levels of EW/ISR capabilities of the Growler without any future development of the Growler, but would that also be true once the Next Generation Jammer (NGJ) pods enter service on the Growlers in USN? I've also read that the NGJ pods will be able to be bolted onto the F-35's without any modifications, maybe that is the direction things will head in the US.
As to what happens here, assuming the Government (or future Governments) stick to the what appears to be the current plan, there's probably a couple of different paths that could be followed.
One may be that all three types (F-35, Shornet and Growler), operate side by side at least up until the Shornets are replace by the last Sqn of F-35's at around 2030, the open question would be if there was seen to be value in continuing operating the Growlers well past that point?
If the Growlers do stay in service maybe they will be upgraded with the NGJ pods and maybe it might be worth keeping the 'pre-wired' Shornets at least as attrition replacements, source of spares, buddy tanking role and in some sort of training role, at least for the 'basic' pilot training role of the Growler fleet.
Another path could see, after Shornets are replaced and the original planned 'all' F-35 fleet is in service, we could see the retirement of the Growlers shortly after that, and that capability passed onto the F-35's, would that be with or without NGJ pods being carried by the F-35's too?
I know those are all assumptions on my part, we are still a number of years away from seeing the first of the Growlers in service and even more years away from seeing the F-35's in service too, the crystal ball starts to get a big foggy at that point!!
sorry for the tardy, just saw this
in real terms they're a lease as we aren't/weren't supposed to keep them
Air Force Brat
Member
Sign me up to attend, I would love to see someone ride this pony to her limits, though I'm not sure we will see those kind of displays, but with the USAF and all the hoopla by the naysayers, somebody really ought to give them an eye opener and take it to the limit, that would shut the "poor kinemetrics" crowd up. The F-35 promises to be very good, with lots of low end grunt from the F-135, and noisy, airshow crowds love "noise"....... brat
Ah - that explains my confusion - I'd described it as a lease on another forum and was sternly corrected.
the first batch are boomerangs (return to sender)
the last batch were "acquisitions"
the reality is that both sides of Govt will not support defence in maintaining a small fleet of orphaned assets (when compared to volume JSF)
the sustainment $$'s on isolated platforms is ugly, and Aust is taking the same view as the US that if you are going to save, then instead of having multiple types with disparate numbers, bite the bullet and kill the fleet to clean out the whole supply and maint chain so that the savings and benefits are crystal clear
i'd bet my house that all are gone by 2030 latest
It's the same way the UK has gone for similar reasons - the entire Harrier decision was based around ditching the 74 cabs and the support overhead for a single type. I look at countries like India with their collect-a-set force structures and wonder how they can keep them all flying and well maintained. Then another Mig-21 crashes and the answer hits me..
So, force structure for Oz, F35 as near to a single type fleet as possible, SuperBugs gone asap with *maybe* the Growlers sticking around til 2030?
So, force structure for Oz, F35 as near to a single type fleet as possible, SuperBugs gone asap with *maybe* the Growlers sticking around til 2030?
King Wally
Active Member
As a humble defence enthusiast I need a little help from someone who knows what they are talking about.
Question emerges while I read about a RAAF purchase of Sidewinders
Australia to Buy AIM 9X-2 Sidewinder Missiles | Missiles & Bombs News at DefenceTalk
The article gives reference to how they will be used in the future by the RAAF's F-35's.
My headache occurs as I am of the belief that the sidewinder must be fired from a pylon on the F-35 and not via a internal weapons bay. With the understanding that using pylons degrades the aircrafts LO status I ponder to myself whats the point? Surely in a air to air threat environment the RAAF would send it's F-35's out at max LO using full internal carriage? Understandably once in a permissive environment you apply the pylons and then turn it into a bomb truck. But again whats the point in slapping on Sidewinders at this stage in the game?
So begs the question what is the role of the sidewinder in relation to the F-35? Am I using totally incorrect assumptions?
Question emerges while I read about a RAAF purchase of Sidewinders
Australia to Buy AIM 9X-2 Sidewinder Missiles | Missiles & Bombs News at DefenceTalk
The article gives reference to how they will be used in the future by the RAAF's F-35's.
My headache occurs as I am of the belief that the sidewinder must be fired from a pylon on the F-35 and not via a internal weapons bay. With the understanding that using pylons degrades the aircrafts LO status I ponder to myself whats the point? Surely in a air to air threat environment the RAAF would send it's F-35's out at max LO using full internal carriage? Understandably once in a permissive environment you apply the pylons and then turn it into a bomb truck. But again whats the point in slapping on Sidewinders at this stage in the game?
So begs the question what is the role of the sidewinder in relation to the F-35? Am I using totally incorrect assumptions?
the road runner
Active Member
The Aim 132 Asraam can be carried internally by JSF .
Australia purchased a number of Aim 132 in early 2000.
http://www.asiapacificdefencereporter.com/articles/293/RAAF-Stand-off-Missiles-Fire-and-Forget
JSF will fight to its advantage, at medium range thus Aim 120 Amraam being what is usually carried internally.That's my understanding of it anyhow.
Australia purchased a number of Aim 132 in early 2000.
http://www.asiapacificdefencereporter.com/articles/293/RAAF-Stand-off-Missiles-Fire-and-Forget
JSF will fight to its advantage, at medium range thus Aim 120 Amraam being what is usually carried internally.That's my understanding of it anyhow.
AIM-9x Block II missiles have lock on after launch capability. They can be launched from internal weapons bays...