Royal Australian Air Force [RAAF] News, Discussions and Updates
John Newman
The Bunker Group
No.
The MH-47G is the 'special forces' version, it gets all the 'extra bits' added for that role, but the 'base' airframe is based on the CH-47F version, same new airframe, and all the modifications that go into the F.
While I agree in getting a dedicated Special forces helicopter and having it based off of an existing/planned platform will help massively am curious if it is the best choice?
Just have the V-22 sitting at the back of my mind and wondering if that would be a better option? Or is there room to get both?
On another note, How does the CH-47F stand up against the CH-53D (or the CH-53K?)?? I'd imagine that with our ties with the USMC being greater then that of the US Army (At least in my view) that it could on some level be beneficial to both operate the CH-53's?
Just have the V-22 sitting at the back of my mind and wondering if that would be a better option? Or is there room to get both?
On another note, How does the CH-47F stand up against the CH-53D (or the CH-53K?)?? I'd imagine that with our ties with the USMC being greater then that of the US Army (At least in my view) that it could on some level be beneficial to both operate the CH-53's?
t68
Well-Known Member
I can't see us going down the V22 route for 2 reasons 1, price and 2 space aboard the Canberra's. Canberra class LHD only has space for a single V22 not sure on CH-53K(also on price) also the LHD have multiple spots for CH-47F (4x spots)
I think this last lot of post should be merged into the Australian Army thread as the aircraft in question is operated by Army Aviation not RAAF
Australia – AGM-88B High Speed Anti-Radiation Missiles
Australia – AGM-88B High Speed Anti-Radiation Missiles | The Official Home of the Defense Security Cooperation Agency
WASHINGTON, Jun 22, 2015 - The State Department has made a determination approving a possible Foreign Military Sale to Australia for AGM-88B High Speed Anti-Radiation Missiles and associated equipment, parts and logistical support for an estimated cost of $69 million. The Defense Security Cooperation Agency delivered the required certification notifying Congress of this possible sale on June 19, 2015.
The Government of Australia has requested possible sale of up to fourteen (14) AGM-88B High Speed Anti-Radiation Missiles (HARM) Tactical Missiles, sixteen (16) AGM-88E Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missiles (AARGM) Tactical Missiles, four (4) CATM-88B Captive Air Training Missiles, eight (8) CATM-88E Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missiles (AARGM) Captive Air Training Missiles, six (6) AARGM Guidance Sections, five (5) AARGM Control Sections, and two (2) AARGM Tactical Telemetry Missiles (for live fire testing), containers, spares and repair parts, support equipment, publications and technical documentation, personnel training and training equipment, U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical, and logistics support services, and other elements of logistics and program support. The estimated cost is $69 million.
This sale will contribute to the foreign policy and national security of the United States by helping to improve the security of Australia, a major contributor to political stability, security, and economic development in Southeast Asia. Australia is an important ally and partner that contributes significantly to peacekeeping and humanitarian operations around the world. It is vital to the U.S. national interest to assist our ally in developing and maintaining a strong and ready self-defense capability. This proposed sale is consistent with those objectives and facilitates burden sharing with a key ally.
The proposed sale will improve Australia’s capability in current and future coalition efforts. Australia will use this capability as a deterrent to regional threats and to strengthen its homeland defense. Australia will have no difficulty absorbing these missiles into its armed forces.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The principal contractor will be Orbital ATK Defense Electronics Systems in Northridge, California. There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.
Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of contractor representatives to Australia.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
This notice of a potential sale is required by law and does not mean the sale has been concluded.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Looks like the opening of FMS accounts for the 'warshots' to support the Growler entry to service.
Interesting to see we are opting for both HARM-B and AARGM. Different RF capability perhaps?
Also interesting to see if these are integrated onto the Shornets and Growlers?
Australia – AGM-88B High Speed Anti-Radiation Missiles | The Official Home of the Defense Security Cooperation Agency
WASHINGTON, Jun 22, 2015 - The State Department has made a determination approving a possible Foreign Military Sale to Australia for AGM-88B High Speed Anti-Radiation Missiles and associated equipment, parts and logistical support for an estimated cost of $69 million. The Defense Security Cooperation Agency delivered the required certification notifying Congress of this possible sale on June 19, 2015.
The Government of Australia has requested possible sale of up to fourteen (14) AGM-88B High Speed Anti-Radiation Missiles (HARM) Tactical Missiles, sixteen (16) AGM-88E Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missiles (AARGM) Tactical Missiles, four (4) CATM-88B Captive Air Training Missiles, eight (8) CATM-88E Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missiles (AARGM) Captive Air Training Missiles, six (6) AARGM Guidance Sections, five (5) AARGM Control Sections, and two (2) AARGM Tactical Telemetry Missiles (for live fire testing), containers, spares and repair parts, support equipment, publications and technical documentation, personnel training and training equipment, U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical, and logistics support services, and other elements of logistics and program support. The estimated cost is $69 million.
This sale will contribute to the foreign policy and national security of the United States by helping to improve the security of Australia, a major contributor to political stability, security, and economic development in Southeast Asia. Australia is an important ally and partner that contributes significantly to peacekeeping and humanitarian operations around the world. It is vital to the U.S. national interest to assist our ally in developing and maintaining a strong and ready self-defense capability. This proposed sale is consistent with those objectives and facilitates burden sharing with a key ally.
The proposed sale will improve Australia’s capability in current and future coalition efforts. Australia will use this capability as a deterrent to regional threats and to strengthen its homeland defense. Australia will have no difficulty absorbing these missiles into its armed forces.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The principal contractor will be Orbital ATK Defense Electronics Systems in Northridge, California. There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.
Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of contractor representatives to Australia.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
This notice of a potential sale is required by law and does not mean the sale has been concluded.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Looks like the opening of FMS accounts for the 'warshots' to support the Growler entry to service.
Interesting to see we are opting for both HARM-B and AARGM. Different RF capability perhaps?
Also interesting to see if these are integrated onto the Shornets and Growlers?
The number of missiles is surprising to me, maybe suggesting an initial buy for the G,s, with follow on buys later.
The 2 models does make a bit of sense. The HARM B would probably be purchased from USN or USAF stocks, and be considerably cheaper than AARGM.
Maybe useful where an AARGM is not really nessasary, like an older Destroyer or Frigate Radar? Or perhaps a cold war era Ground based Radar for SAM.
OF.
The 2 models does make a bit of sense. The HARM B would probably be purchased from USN or USAF stocks, and be considerably cheaper than AARGM.
Maybe useful where an AARGM is not really nessasary, like an older Destroyer or Frigate Radar? Or perhaps a cold war era Ground based Radar for SAM.
OF.
Yeah I suspect this is an initial purchase to open the FMS 'account' for these weapon systems. These as I understand it are similar to any account where further purchases can be made, without the necessary public announcements of weapon stocks, ie: for national security purposes.
t68
Well-Known Member
I wasn't awere of that as I thought all purshace had to be approved and notified, makes sence thou gota keep people guess to your capabilty
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Apart from these missiles being integrated for use by the Growler in USN service, I believe, from what I have read, that they have (or will be) also been integrated for use by the Super Hornets in USN service too.
So there is probably no 'technical' reasons why not, probably just comes down to stock and if the RAAF sees a need to do so.
But it does bring up the interesting question, will we ever see weapons (other than what the USN already has or plans to integrate onto the SHornets), enter service on the RAAF's Shornets?
I remember at the time (and subsequently too) that the RAAF said that our Shornets will be kept to exactly the same configuration as the USN's aircraft, which obviously made sense when they were originally intended to be in service for ten years only.
But now with them going to be kept in service till at least 2030, I do wonder if the RAAF will ever look at 'going it alone' and integrating additional weapons above and beyond what the USN has planned for its fleet.
Some of the weapons that come to mind are the currently in service JASSM carried by the Classics (as I understand it JASSM and the -ER version will both be available for use by the F-35, externally carriage only) and also the Norwegian JSM that will probably be a potential candidate for Australia's future F-35A's.
I understand that fitment trials of JSM have been done on SHornets, (yes of course that is still a long way off actually integrating, test flying and firing the weapon), still, it shows the potential for such a thing to happen.
Cant remember the correct tem for "account", but once opened, the deal remains secret between the US and the purchaseing country, where numbers of "things" purchased are not publiclly disclosed. Is it case?
So our SEAD and DEAD capability is growing, and thats a great thing. Add the electronic jamming and throw in some F35,s, Wedgetails, and a clear path is opened.
Yep. A buyer establishes FMS cases for these things. I used account for the sake of brevity...
Yep, its an interesting question. Equally of interest (IMHO) is the current testing and integration of LRASM, which shares weight, aerodynamic properties and outer mould lines with the JASSM / JASSM-ER family on the Super Hornet...
The Classics will be retired before future blocks of F-35 are able to employ JASSM. Does RAAF genuinely intend to take a backwards step with its standoff strike capability, through no platforms able to carry its primary strike weapon?
John Newman
The Bunker Group
The point you make about the Classics, with their capability for carriage of JASSM retiring before the F-35A's have the capability to carry and deliver long range strike weapons (Block 4 software??), is certainly something that has crossed my mind too!!
I'm sure we all remember when the then Government announced the retirement of the F-111C's, with their long range strike capability, that the then Government decided that 'before' the F-111C's were retired the long range strike capability would be taken over by both the Classic Hornets and AP-3C's equipped with JASSM.
At the end of the day (and late too!), it was only the Classics that ended with JASSM.
So it will be interesting to see (maybe addressed in the upcoming DWP), how the Government proposed to 'maintain' Australia's long range strike capability (a capability that dates back at least to 1973 when the F-111C's entered service).
The opportunity certainly exists for that to happen with the integration of JASSM and/or JASSM-ER (long range land or fixed target strike) and LRASM (long range maritime strike role) to the fleet of Super Hornets.
Realistically, if the Government does intend for Australia to maintain it's long range strike deterrent, then there will be no other option but to look at adding that capability to other airframes that are in the RAAF's inventory (Shornets for example, but maybe also P-8A's too?).
Maintaining the long range strike capability of the RAAF is a very interesting subject to say the least!
Cheers,
I think that there is some misunderstanding here as to the requirements in US law pertaining to foreign military sales. Under the Arms Export Control Act (AECA), Australia is treated as a NATO member for such sales thus requiring the President to give Congress 15 calendar days notice for sales of major defense equipment valued over $14 million or defense services or articles valued over $50 million. This is to give Congress an opportunity to block the sale. There are some other minor provisions that rarely come into play.
There is no such thing as an " account" and further sales cannot be kept "secret." The President must, under law, notify the Congress publically of any further sales which meet the requirement of the AECA. Should, for example, the President, at some future date, decide to sell further missiles of this type to Australia he must again notify Congress publically.
Last edited:
An FMS case gives authority to sell an item to a foreign nation and can include items that the customer nation has not ordered but may desire in the future. Yes future sales will have to be notified but this will be a far simpler process than the initial approval.
The AECA is quite specific and there is no provision for "items that the customer nation has not ordered but may desire in the future." Congress must be notified each and every time military items meeting the criteria set forth in the act are sold. The approval process is the same each and every time and there is no "far simpler process."
There is no such thing as an "FMS" case and authority to sell can only be given if Congress does not disapprove.
Really I must have been mistaken, perhaps even hallucinating, when I was dealing with just such a case because I am certain that some of the systems listed for the project I was on have not at this point been procured, nor are there any plans to procure them. I actually queried why they were part of the case, i.e. were they included in the baseline of one of the losing contenders etc. and I was told they had in all likelihood been included to save time and money, as well as increase the chance they would be selected over other options for proposed future projects.
I do not know why the items were included, I just know there were and that they have not been ordered, let alone fitted to any current ADF platform.
Last edited:
Backed up with a complete lack of facts as your argument is, do a quick search and you will find that EVERY single FMS acqusition requires the establishment of an FMS case.
But hey, believe what you want mate. Weapons stocks are never classified, its all public domain...
Lol
Edit: just to clear up this nonsense once and for all, it took all of about 2.5 seconds using the Googles to find out that what Volkodav and I said earlier is EXACTLY correct and what pkcasimir said couldn't have been more incorrect.
http://www.disam.dsca.mil/pubs/DR/06 Chapter.pdf
Last edited:
For christs sake, Australia has purchaced exactly how many harpoons since the 1st buy? Its all in the public domain apparently, so someone google it for me please, because I cant find an answer.
AIM 9 X intial purchace was around 21 missiles, and assosiated gear, followed up by about 350 block 2 AIM 9 X. A lot of WVR missiles for 24 aircraft. (Although they will be used on the F35)
As for the 2 versions of HARM, I can only speculate that the E version would be more expensive than the B, and the B would be perfectly suitable for a lot of targets, making it the most cost effective weapon to use in some circumstances, where as more modern or important targets would have a better kill probability with the E.
I believe that The ALARM missile is superior to both versions, and has a "loiter" ability, where after launch, it will continue to look for targets if its initial target "disapears".
AIM 9 X intial purchace was around 21 missiles, and assosiated gear, followed up by about 350 block 2 AIM 9 X. A lot of WVR missiles for 24 aircraft. (Although they will be used on the F35)
As for the 2 versions of HARM, I can only speculate that the E version would be more expensive than the B, and the B would be perfectly suitable for a lot of targets, making it the most cost effective weapon to use in some circumstances, where as more modern or important targets would have a better kill probability with the E.
I believe that The ALARM missile is superior to both versions, and has a "loiter" ability, where after launch, it will continue to look for targets if its initial target "disapears".