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

[CJR]

This new aircraft will enable the ADF to do things they could never do before and I wonder how long it will take before the true effects of this platforms capabilities become obvious enough that we order B models and start sending them to sea.

If we get '-35Bs we shouldn't hold any delusions of turning the LPHs into HMAS Melbourne Mk II, let alone a full on strike carrier. Realistically, we're not going to be operating in the teeth of major air opposition, instead we should be aiming for the ability to put, say, six aboard to provide close air support (and clean up any stray maritime patrol aircraft that get too close). Emphasizing the non-ship board utility of the type would also be good, given the relative lack of high quality airfield out in the "arc of instability".

Then there's the problem of fitting 'em into the present RAAF structure without loosing out on other capabilities. Of cause, with GDP expected to double in real terms by c.2035, and Australia's population doing likewise sometime between 2040 and 2070 depending on which of the ABS's scenarios you follow, even with defence items running above CPI inflation we should be able to fund modest expansion without causing too much budget trouble... Actually that sorta applies to the entirety of the defence forces, everything seems to be focused on building capability within current manpower and cost envelopes even when we should be able to do more than that without breaking the bank int eh medium term.

Edit: 'suse any typos... knocked back a few shots of whiskey this evening. Resorting to bloody Jamersons while waiting for the two bottles of good Tasweigen stuff to arrive in the post.

 

[gf0012-aust]

If we get '-35Bs we shouldn't hold any delusions of turning the LPHs into HMAS Melbourne Mk II, let alone a full on strike carrier. Realistically, we're not going to be operating in the teeth of major air opposition, instead we should be aiming for the ability to put, say, six aboard to provide close air support (and clean up any stray maritime patrol aircraft that get too close). Emphasizing the non-ship board utility of the type would also be good, given the relative lack of high quality airfield out in the "arc of instability".

Then there's the problem of fitting 'em into the present RAAF structure without loosing out on other capabilities. Of cause, with GDP expected to double in real terms by c.2035, and Australia's population doing likewise sometime between 2040 and 2070 depending on which of the ABS's scenarios you follow, even with defence items running above CPI inflation we should be able to fund modest expansion without causing too much budget trouble... Actually that sorta applies to the entirety of the defence forces, everything seems to be focused on building capability within current manpower and cost envelopes even when we should be able to do more than that without breaking the bank int eh medium term.

Edit: 'suse any typos... knocked back a few shots of whiskey this evening. Resorting to bloody Jamersons while waiting for the two bottles of good Tasweigen stuff to arrive in the post.

not my intention to continue the theoretical on RAN fixed wing fighters (as its not going to happen), but govt would follow the UK model anyway

they would be driven by RAAF

 

[t68]

not my intention to continue the theoretical on RAN fixed wing fighters (as its not going to happen), but govt would follow the UK model anyway

they would be driven by RAAF

They may be RAF on the books, but will be a joint effort in piloting them.

But in an ADF context I see the B's being useful without going to sea (austere airfields forward deployed) once the Chinese get the island bases up and running.It was a pity that we never got Invincible and Harrier as a Melbourne replacement

 

[gf0012-aust]

They may be RAF on the books, but will be a joint effort in piloting them.

But in an ADF context I see the B's being useful without going to sea (austere airfields forward deployed) once the Chinese get the island bases up and running.It was a pity that we never got Invincible and Harrier as a Melbourne replacement

nope. already considered by govt previously long ago - and rejected

RAAF pennants, RAAF drivers on RAN assets

there will be no RAN fixed wing combat platforms

 

[t68]

nope. already considered by govt previously long ago - and rejected

RAAF pennants, RAAF drivers on RAN assets

there will be no RAN fixed wing combat platforms

Ah my mix up thought you where referring to the UK model for the Queen Elizabeth's so far the No. 617 Squadron RAF and 809 Naval Air Squadron have been announced they will operate F35B from the CVF


But wholeheartedly agree that they will be manned and operated by RAAF if we ever got them.

 

[SpazSinbad]

I agree that the RAAF need to have a role for F-35Bs ashore where they will operate most of the time (they'll get hints from RAAF / USMC exchange on F-35Bs) then having a small number when required onboard will greatly help the 'Plan Jericho' RAAF concept (called NIFC-CA for USN) [old RAN Fleet Defence - not CAS - they can do that ashore]. All that be as it may or not I'll draw attention to this blurb and the long history of No.9 RAAF squadron aircraft on RAN ships only to be overtaken by RAN FAA in 1948 (historical RAN FAA traditional birth year).

"...In May 1917 a Sopwith Baby float plane became the first aircraft to operate from an RAN ship, HMAS Brisbane. Although this event doesn’t mark the beginning of a naval aviation capability for Australia, which was later approved by the Council for Defence on 3 July 1947, it was the point at which the RAN began to explore a concept that later became the FAA...." https://www.faaaa.asn.au/comfaa-monthly-bulletin/

RAAF 'KILL Web' discussion amongst other things - platform agnostic.

http://www.sldinfo.com/shaping-cult...ctive-of-air-combat-group-commander-roberton/

 

[t68]

I agree that the RAAF need to have a role for F-35Bs ashore where they will operate most of the time (they'll get hints from RAAF / USMC exchange on F-35Bs)

yep considering that the Chinese with there new bases in SCS have effectively moved 1000km closer to Australia and the ASEAN region which puts pressure on existing possible airfield from which the RAAF can operate from, a mixture of RAAF/USMC and possible RSAF F35B operating from FARPS would make sense if we are denied access to existing airbases,

 

[Mark_Evans]

Land based Aegis base in Northern Australia in response to NK threat

Ok, with North Korea making threats to launch at Australia, is it time to start thinking about setting up Aegis Ashore up in the north of Australia?
I thought some research had gone into seeing if our AWD's could handle the job but I have not seen anything to say they could handle an IRBM from NK.
Perhaps putting a land based Aegis system with SM3 missiles might be a worthwhile insurance policy.
Remember - Newbie here so I hope I am not treading over old ground that has already been covered. Just topical with the recent threat from NK.

 

[hauritz]

Ok, with North Korea making threats to launch at Australia, is it time to start thinking about setting up Aegis Ashore up in the north of Australia?
I thought some research had gone into seeing if our AWD's could handle the job but I have not seen anything to say they could handle an IRBM from NK.
Perhaps putting a land based Aegis system with SM3 missiles might be a worthwhile insurance policy.
Remember - Newbie here so I hope I am not treading over old ground that has already been covered. Just topical with the recent threat from NK.

We will only have 3 destroyers.

At any given time only one or two of those will be available. In order to intercept any incoming missile the destroyer would also have to be in the right place at the right time.

I remain sceptical that a destroyer could intercept an incoming ballistic missile fired at the Australian mainland.

Even if all the destroyers and frigates were equipped with these missiles there still only be a hand full available at any given time.

At best I can see these missiles providing some defence for a task group ... but for protecting Australia's cities ... I just don't see how that would work. Perhaps a land based system could do the job ... but I imagine it would be incredibly expensive.

 

[Stampede]

I agree that the RAAF need to have a role for F-35Bs ashore where they will operate most of the time (they'll get hints from RAAF / USMC exchange on F-35Bs) then having a small number when required onboard will greatly help the 'Plan Jericho' RAAF concept (called NIFC-CA for USN) [old RAN Fleet Defence - not CAS - they can do that ashore]. All that be as it may or not I'll draw attention to this blurb and the long history of No.9 RAAF squadron aircraft on RAN ships only to be overtaken by RAN FAA in 1948 (historical RAN FAA traditional birth year).

RAAF 'KILL Web' discussion amongst other things - platform agnostic.

Shaping Cultural and Generational Change in the RAAF: The Perspective of Air Combat Group Commander Roberton | SLDInfo

The F35B conversation can always lead to the Naughty corner,however I do wonder in the 2020's what the conversation will be when the US Marines,the Royal navy and the Italian Navy have some operational and also potentially combat experience with the F35B off their ships.
Will the 2020's generation of RAAF leadership become drivers for the F35B off our LHD's? I would suspect so, as there seems a healthy enlightenment being fostered in the RAAF today of problem solving which may well see the benefits of such a marriage of ship and plane. We are not trying to build fleet carrier, but just utilising the benefits of a small number of aircraft and what that can bring to the modern battle space.

Regards S

 

[t68]

We will only have 3 destroyers.

At any given time only one or two of those will be available. In order to intercept any incoming missile the destroyer would also have to be in the right place at the right time.

I remain sceptical that a destroyer could intercept an incoming ballistic missile fired at the Australian mainland.

Even if all the destroyers and frigates were equipped with these missiles there still only be a hand full available at any given time.

At best I can see these missiles providing some defence for a task group ... but for protecting Australia's cities ... I just don't see how that would work. Perhaps a land based system could do the job ... but I imagine it would be incredibly expensive.

Quite right, our numbers are too low to make an effective ABM shield possible even thou the flight profiles would be predictable. They would have to be avalible 24/7 as the unknown is the launching timeline.


http://www2.mae.ufl.edu/~uhk/ICBM.pdf

 

[vonnoobie]

The F35B conversation can always lead to the Naughty corner,however I do wonder in the 2020's what the conversation will be when the US Marines,the Royal navy and the Italian Navy have some operational and also potentially combat experience with the F35B off their ships.
Will the 2020's generation of RAAF leadership become drivers for the F35B off our LHD's? I would suspect so, as there seems a healthy enlightenment being fostered in the RAAF today of problem solving which may well see the benefits of such a marriage of ship and plane. We are not trying to build fleet carrier, but just utilising the benefits of a small number of aircraft and what that can bring to the modern battle space.

Regards S

Has already been discussed and sorted, if we are to cquire any F-35B's they will be operated exclusively off of land, at best off of allied flat tops.

Our LHD's where built with out the required systems to field such aircraft, meaning a costly rebuild of them to allow such a capability.

Such an endevour would also take away from the ships primary task which is to field ground forces.

The questioned has already come up officialy and been answered by the ADF and government, For the costs involved and the direct impact it will have on the level of equipment and men/women being able to be shipped aboard the LHD's for a capability that might be used one day it is not a worth while investment.

There are far more natural disasters and peace keeping roles we can either lead or take part in with these ships then there are missions in which they will require F-35's aboard them, and unless we are totally strip away all helicopters they simply wont field enough to make it worth while.

Regards, VN.

 

[t68]

Has already been discussed and sorted, if we are to cquire any F-35B's they will be operated exclusively off of land, at best off of allied flat tops.

Our LHD's where built with out the required systems to field such aircraft, meaning a costly rebuild of them to allow such a capability.

Such an endevour would also take away from the ships primary task which is to field ground forces.

The questioned has already come up officialy and been answered by the ADF and government, For the costs involved and the direct impact it will have on the level of equipment and men/women being able to be shipped aboard the LHD's for a capability that might be used one day it is not a worth while investment.

There are far more natural disasters and peace keeping roles we can either lead or take part in with these ships then there are missions in which they will require F-35's aboard them, and unless we are totally strip away all helicopters they simply wont field enough to make it worth while.

Regards, VN.

Actually I don't discount that the ADF may or may not field in the future a put fast jets back to sea, capabilty plans and requirments may change, new thinking emerges, there becomes a time that current ships need to be replaced or enhanced.


We have a future need in the 2020's for another LSD or stratgic sealift ship, I would not discount the possibility that Tecport will be expanded to accomadated building such ships. we could in theroy build another LHD as that stratgic ship and as a follow on an enhanced aviation shipping a similer vane to LHA-6 or 9 with a smaller well dock. I'm not saying it will or will not happen but Inthink once our politicians are exposed to more advanced think and see tangible assets in Australia via the USMC/USN there thinking could change. But not at this time Abbott has put the seeds of a possabile future growthof the ADF in general but I think it was the right move in not placing F35 on our current LHD's

 

[hairyman]

If we are to have 35B's in a naval role, we would need purpose built ships to carry them. I would suggest that the Japanese Helicopter Destroyer (ahem) Izuzo class with a ski jump would suit. At a reported cost of $1.5B, a similar price to HMAS Canberra. (Shouldnt this be in the Navy Thread)?

 

[ADMk2]

We will only have 3 destroyers.

At any given time only one or two of those will be available. In order to intercept any incoming missile the destroyer would also have to be in the right place at the right time.

I remain sceptical that a destroyer could intercept an incoming ballistic missile fired at the Australian mainland.

Even if all the destroyers and frigates were equipped with these missiles there still only be a hand full available at any given time.

At best I can see these missiles providing some defence for a task group ... but for protecting Australia's cities ... I just don't see how that would work. Perhaps a land based system could do the job ... but I imagine it would be incredibly expensive.

SM-3 and AEGIS BMD don't allow for the engagement of the inter-continental ballistic missile NK would need to reach the Auatralian mainland, unless NK has developed a sea-launched ballistic missile system I am unaware of?

To successfully intercept them, we will require THAAD for terminal engagement or ground-based mid-course interceptors, which are so incredibly expensive that even the US has been unable to afford to deploy more than 36 launch systems, and that is on top of their incredibly expensive BMD C4ISR infrastructure...

If we are to get a BMD capability, I can only imagine it will at best be a limited terminal engagement capability, which means SM-3, Patriot PAC-3 or THAAD in our context.

 

[SpazSinbad]

'hairyman' said: "...(Shouldnt this be in the Navy Thread)?" Aaahh always difficult to pigeon hole naval aviation eh. :dance I'm not commenting further because I've done my time on the naughty step thank you veddy much. :smilie

 

[alexsa]

Has already been discussed and sorted, if we are to cquire any F-35B's they will be operated exclusively off of land, at best off of allied flat tops.

Our LHD's where built with out the required systems to field such aircraft, meaning a costly rebuild of them to allow such a capability.

Such an endevour would also take away from the ships primary task which is to field ground forces.

The questioned has already come up officialy and been answered by the ADF and government, For the costs involved and the direct impact it will have on the level of equipment and men/women being able to be shipped aboard the LHD's for a capability that might be used one day it is not a worth while investment.

There are far more natural disasters and peace keeping roles we can either lead or take part in with these ships then there are missions in which they will require F-35's aboard them, and unless we are totally strip away all helicopters they simply wont field enough to make it worth while.

Regards, VN.

Actually our LHD's have the same systems as the Spanish version, however, that does not the LHD could sustain JSF operations over an extended period and embarking such aircrafts reduces the vessel utility in its primary function.

 

[t68]

Actually our LHD's have the same systems as the Spanish version, however, that does not the LHD could sustain JSF operations over an extended period and embarking such aircrafts reduces the vessel utility in its primary function.

Yep even the Spanish say they were built only to be temporary aircraft carriers,

AIRCRAFT CARRIER: A temporary platform for carrier-based naval aircraft, acting as a flight deck for strategic projection airborne vectors (Navy’s Air Wing), capable of becoming a temporary platform to substitute the aircraft-carrier, “PRINCIPE DE ASTURIAS”, when she is not available due to downtime (repairs, modifications, etc.).

https://www.navantia.es/ckfinder/userfiles/files/sala_pr/folleto LHD_marzo_para navantia_ingles.pdf

 

[Volkodav]

Has already been discussed and sorted, if we are to cquire any F-35B's they will be operated exclusively off of land, at best off of allied flat tops.

Our LHD's where built with out the required systems to field such aircraft, meaning a costly rebuild of them to allow such a capability.

Such an endevour would also take away from the ships primary task which is to field ground forces.

The questioned has already come up officialy and been answered by the ADF and government, For the costs involved and the direct impact it will have on the level of equipment and men/women being able to be shipped aboard the LHD's for a capability that might be used one day it is not a worth while investment.

There are far more natural disasters and peace keeping roles we can either lead or take part in with these ships then there are missions in which they will require F-35's aboard them, and unless we are totally strip away all helicopters they simply wont field enough to make it worth while.

Regards, VN.

Ironically 4-8 F-35B would bring far more capability than a dozen Seaharriers or AV-8Bs and a couple of AEW helicopters ever could. I actually imagine that once the RAAFs F-35 As start playing with the RAN and army there will be more pressure to get some Bs, not less, as if the type is anywhere near as effective as it seems the others won't want to go into harms way without them.

 

[MARKMILES77]

SM-3 and AEGIS BMD don't allow for the engagement of the inter-continental ballistic missile NK would need to reach the Auatralian mainland, unless NK has developed a sea-launched ballistic missile system I am unaware of?

Pukkuksong-1 is the North Korean name for their SLBM.
First test launch from a Submarine on 24 August 2016.

The Diplomat

North Korea Tests Submarine-Launched Ballistic Missile as US-South Korea Exercises Begin
The missile landed in the Sea of Japan and flew 300 kilometers, according to U.S. Strategic Command.


By Ankit Panda
August 24, 2016



Early Wednesday morning, North Korea launched a submarine-launched ballistic missile off its eastern coast, which then splashed down in international waters in the Sea of Japan. The SLBM launch comes shortly after the United States and South Korea began their annual late-summer Ulchi Freedom Guardian military exercises and after South Korea staged its largest-ever life fire artillery drills near the border with North Korea.

According to U.S. Strategic Command, which tracked the launch, the missile was most likely a KN-11 SLBM and was launched off the coast, near Sinpo, where North Korea has been developing its Gorae-class ballistic missile submarine.

Strategic Command assessed that the missile flew approximately 300 miles from the coast of North Korea, indicating a moderate-to-high degree of success. Pyongyang’s April test demonstrated a flight distance of 30 kilometers. Exhaust plume analysis of the April launch by missile experts suggested that Pyongyang had used solid fuel propellant; it’s unknown if it tested the same engine on Wednesday.


Wednesday’s test entered Japan’s air defense identification zone, but did not splash down in the country’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ). In a first, a Nodong intermediate-range ballistic missile test earlier this month splashed down in Japanese waters, drawing sharp condemnation from Tokyo.

The test is the third of its kind this year, with Pyongyang having tested the platform to differing degrees of success in April and July. Pyongyang first tested the KN-11 from a submerged barge last year. North Korea is thought to have first begun land-based ejection tests for the SLBM in 2014.

Overall, 2016 has seen North Korea conduct repeated ballistic missile tests in violation of existing United Nations Security Council resolutions. In addition to the KN-11 SLBM, North Korea has been testing its Hwasong-10 intermediate-range ballistic missiles, which are thought to be capable of nearly striking the U.S. territory of Guam in the western Pacific Ocean.

North Korea’s pursuit of an SLBM is meant to complement its existing range of land-launched, road-mobile ballistic missiles and artillery. In seeking to operationalize its nuclear deterrent against capability, North Korea wants to demonstrate a robust SLBM second-strike capability.

Moreover, SLBMs could undermine recent efforts by South Korea and the United States to bolster missile defense. As Jeffrey Lewis, an arms control expert and North Korea watcher notes, a North Korean SLBM could plausibly bypass the upcoming Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system on the Korean peninsula due to the system’s 120° radar field of view. (A submarine could conceivably launch its payload from any direction.)

http://thediplomat.com/2016/08/nort...ic-missile-as-us-south-korea-exercises-begin/

North Koreans have also released videos.
Can you post the link to this please. It protects you and the forum from accusations of plagiarism.