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

[oldsig127]

Come on fellas, use your imagination, what should we spend it on?

Paper fleets I should imagine.

ngatimozart said:

On top of that every three years there is an election where voters have the option of firing the incumbents and starting with another lot of much the same.

It's far worse than that of course. With the fall in voter attention spans and the rise of identity politics we are seeing an increasingly splintered polity. Expect more and more independents with utterly diverse agendas and the chance of proper strategic government gets harder and harder. Herding chickens will be seen as simple by comparison.

Then see if you can get enough votes on the floor to spend extra on defence while satisfying the individual demands of a bevy of politicians elected because "they're ordinary folk, just like us" rather than because of any coherent thought that might have once crossed their collective minds

oldsig

 

[Redlands18]

Ran out of time for edit of post above so here it is: From the Source: Chief of Air Force Air Marshal Leo Davies 31 Jan 2018 "...In a country the size of Australia, we are an expeditionary force..." From the Source: Chief of Air Force Air Marshal Leo Davies - Australian Defence Magazine
&
Recenty VERY the RAAFwaafa expeditely refueled ARMY tanks in the scrub somewhere ala: Carriers Aren’t The Only Big Targets: The Challenges of Mobile Basing 08 Jun 2018

Not having any luck finding RAAF refueling ARMY tanks expeditionarywise but would a V-22 USMC do? Enhanced Air Cooperation - RAAF Video Portal

Very interesting article, makes some valid points.

 

[SpazSinbad]

Report Raises Chance Of More Australian F/A-18 Super Hornets 21 Oct 2016 Bradley Perrett

"...the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) has mentioned the possibility of a further Super Hornet order, apparently without much conviction, while also suggesting the F-35B, the vertical-landing version of the Lightning, as potential equipment.... The RAAF identifies F-35As, F-35Bs and Super Hornets as options, though it is very unlikely to want the latter....

...The service [RAAF] seems to still harbor hopes of an all-Lightning fighter and strike force. In a little-noticed address to an ASPI meeting in July, the head of the RAAF, Air Marshal Leo Davies, listed the candidates for Australia’s next combat-aircraft program as Super Hornets, F-35As and F-35Bs....

...Davies did not explain the merits of the third, quite surprising option, the F-35B. But an obvious possibility is that Australia has begun to wonder about the survivability of its northern airbases in the face of attack by Chinese cruise and ballistic missiles...." http://aviationweek.com/combat-aircraft/report-raises-chance-more-australian-fa-18-super-hornets

From the Source: Chief of Air Force Air Marshal Leo Davies 31 Jan 2018 Katherine Ziesing

"...In a country the size of Australia, we are an expeditionary force...." [only quote relevant from my e-mail source of article] http://www.australiandefence.com.au...rce-chief-of-air-force-air-marshal-leo-davies

 

[Redlands18]

Report Raises Chance Of More Australian F/A-18 Super Hornets 21 Oct 2016 Bradley Perrett

From the Source: Chief of Air Force Air Marshal Leo Davies 31 Jan 2018 Katherine Ziesing

That could make a case for F-35Bs as there would be a lot more Airfields where they could be deployed but of course that comes with loss of Combat Radius.

 

[ngatimozart]

Now is a good time to be discussing additional expenditure for the ADF. There are far more knowledgeable people than I calling for a massive increase in defence spending. but even with the projected increase funding from 1.8% to 2% GDP, that is over $7b au extra per annum. Come on fellas, use your imagination, what should we spend it on?

So you want to spend money you don't have on capabilities that are at present pie in the sky when the ADF already have problems that need addressing before looking at new capabilities? What about all the funding shortfalls, stuff ups and mismanagement caused by pollies over the last 10, 20 or so years ago resulting in lost capabilities? What about all the deferred maintenance that has occurred and needs to be rectified? What about personnel shortages, especially in the technical areas? So how about some logic, rationality and sensibility. When the ADF gets back to where it should be, then look at new capability sets. Any additional expenditure at the moment will be playing catch up.

 

[Redlands18]

There is a reason why Australia very rarely raises a new Unit/Ship from scratch, whether it is a Btn, Regt, Sqn or increase Ship Numbers, it's B****y Expensive.
You have to house it, find the extra people to fill the extra positions and purchase the Equipment and train the Personnel since 1990 the only from scratch "new" units I can think off are.
Army Split 2-4 RAR, Split 5-7 RAR
Navy add 2 new Amphibs(even then we have lost the LCHs)
RAAF form 2 Sqn
Just about everything else comes from an existing unit/Ship.

 

[SpazSinbad]

That could make a case for F-35Bs as there would be a lot more Airfields where they could be deployed but of course that comes with loss of Combat Radius.

Probably not so much loss of Combat Radius, especially off flat decks at sea but also on land. The F-35B can VL anywhere suitable so 'finding' a place to land is relatively easy compared to an F-35A needing to find a suitable airfield (which may or may not be damaged or affected by bad weather). Chuck in the PORTABLE JPALS to either scenario will get rid of WX concerns but not the 'place to land'. So an F-35B can return for landing with LESS FUEL required than an F-35A which may require extra fuel in case of 'landing issues'. A bit nebulous I realise however worth keeping in mind how that will affect both aircraft and their 'combat radius' in ops reality. Also the F-35B can be FORWARD BASED requiring LESS combat radius to sojourn to the point of combat and return to said forward base which may well move even more forward backward or sideways down in the meantime. Sadly the F-35A base remains where it is OR there may be another to land upon which could be nearer I concede - lots of variables eh.

 

[John Fedup]

I have a suspicion some air forces will be closely watching how the B version performs in actual combat environments. The flexibility this platform offers, as per earlier posts, offsets the higher costs, especially for nations that might want a naval air capability down the road.

 

[Redlands18]

Probably not so much loss of Combat Radius, especially off flat decks at sea but also on land. The F-35B can VL anywhere suitable so 'finding' a place to land is relatively easy compared to an F-35A needing to find a suitable airfield (which may or may not be damaged or affected by bad weather). Chuck in the PORTABLE JPALS to either scenario will get rid of WX concerns but not the 'place to land'. So an F-35B can return for landing with LESS FUEL required than an F-35A which may require extra fuel in case of 'landing issues'. A bit nebulous I realise however worth keeping in mind how that will affect both aircraft and their 'combat radius' in ops reality. Also the F-35B can be FORWARD BASED requiring LESS combat radius to sojourn to the point of combat and return to said forward base which may well move even more forward backward or sideways down in the meantime. Sadly the F-35A base remains where it is OR there may be another to land upon which could be nearer I concede - lots of variables eh.

Some great points but you still have to be able to support them at that Airfield and that means using Tpt assets such as the large Amphibs, C-130s & c-27s & Helicopters especially if we are talking offshore. The question would have to be asked does Australia have the ability to support this capability in the field while at the same time carrying out all the other Tasks our fairly small numbers of Tpt Assets would be req to do?

 

[SpazSinbad]

The RAAF is practicing this remote support for ADF assets as has been made clear recently. Wartime tasks and OTHER tasks are what they are and the devil take the hindmost. [still cannot find the 'refueling our tanks in our outback' story]

 

[ASSAIL]

Some great points but you still have to be able to support them at that Airfield and that means using Tpt assets such as the large Amphibs, C-130s & c-27s & Helicopters especially if we are talking offshore. The question would have to be asked does Australia have the ability to support this capability in the field while at the same time carrying out all the other Tasks our fairly small numbers of Tpt Assets would be req to do?

That capability was practised with some fanfare during Exercise Pitch Black earlier this year.
The remote strip at Batchelor (100kms South of Darwin) was converted into a large hub including extensive medical and refuelling facilities. Intense operations from both Tyndall (Katherine) and Darwin we’re running concurrently during the exercise.

 

[t68]

While the F35B can and will most likely operate from more very austere fields with USMC FARPS, that's not to say the F35A cannot do they same but under different circumstance pending the level of infrastructure available. they can in theory operate from secondary roads obviously the C would handle the rougher ride but concrete highways will also make do as makeshift runways.

 

[SpazSinbad]

Thanks 'Assail' that was the 'fueling tanks thingo'. Good points made about alternative strips including bits of straight highway, plenty of that up north although perhaps NOT (always) concrete or specific grade of good bitumen. Forgot to add that if newer, expanded roles for the RAAF to support the ARMY ashore in Oz are envisaged THEN if a different asset such as the F-35B is purchased then PERHAPS more support assets will be bought at or near the same time if current support assets not deemed able. Has the RAAF every operated off a straight highway strip somewhere, anywhere?

 

[Raven22]

I think the bit that often gets missed is that being able to land an aircraft somewhere is very different from being able to operate an aircraft out of somewhere. For example, it might be a simple matter for an F35B to be able to land/takeoff from an austere location, but it is not a simple matter to supply that location with the fuel, ordnance, power, security etc needed to actually have a militarily useful capability. The ADF would struggle mightily to supply even a permanent base with all these things during a conflict; the ADFs ability to do so at an austere location is very small indeed.

For a small nation close to its enemies that might have its permanent bases targeted in the opening minutes of a war, the ability to operate out of neighbouring straight stretches of road for a couple of days until the war is won or lost (Northern Europe) it might make military sense. For a nation like Australia, that would have to set up these austere locations thousands of km from permanent bases, it doesn’t make a lot of sense. The USMC might be able to dedicate enough resources to make it work, the ADF certainly can’t.

 

[t68]

Thanks 'Assail' that was the 'fueling tanks thingo'. Good points made about alternative strips including bits of straight highway, plenty of that up north although perhaps NOT (always) concrete or specific grade of good bitumen. Forgot to add that if newer, expanded roles for the RAAF to support the ARMY ashore in Oz are envisaged THEN if a different asset such as the F-35B is purchased then PERHAPS more support assets will be bought at or near the same time if current support assets not deemed able. Has the RAAF every operated off a straight highway strip somewhere, anywhere?

I haven’t heard of them ever practicing fast jets of roads, C27J was doing that out off the nullabour plains not long ago but those are also mainly used for RFDS. I have heard the Forshore road Banksmeadow is rumoured to be an auxiliary runway.

C-27J Spartans show off outback landing capabilities - CONTACT magazine


This mention that we have them but not where they are,
SH: The roads that are leading a sinister and secret double life SS: If war was declared, these highways would reveal their true purpose.

 

[SpazSinbad]

't68': Thanks for info. A good GOOGLE search string is: raaf batchelor airfield exercise pitch black 2018

"...creation of a Forward Operating Base at Batchelor Airfield, allowing Defence to rehearse delivery of forces for a peacekeeping or humanitarian response...." Exercise Pitch Black 18 concludes in the Northern Territory | Royal Australian Air Force

 

[SpazSinbad]

I think the bit that often gets missed is that being able to land an aircraft somewhere is very different from being able to operate an aircraft out of somewhere. For example, it might be a simple matter for an F35B to be able to land/takeoff from an austere location, but it is not a simple matter to supply that location with the fuel, ordnance, power, security etc needed to actually have a militarily useful capability. The ADF would struggle mightily to supply even a permanent base with all these things during a conflict; the ADFs ability to do so at an austere location is very small indeed.

For a small nation close to its enemies that might have its permanent bases targeted in the opening minutes of a war, the ability to operate out of neighbouring straight stretches of road for a couple of days until the war is won or lost (Northern Europe) it might make military sense. For a nation like Australia, that would have to set up these austere locations thousands of km from permanent bases, it doesn’t make a lot of sense. The USMC might be able to dedicate enough resources to make it work, the ADF certainly can’t.

All that may well be true at moment however the RAAF are looking at improving this concept as noted from earlier posts here. Having been a pilot requiring a place to land ASAP (but not back onboard MELBOURNE) it was great to have NAS Nowra nearby with just enough fuel to get their. Of course there were other instances of instrument flying with airfield socked in with perhaps a divert airfield for problems. HOWEVER wouldn't it be nice to have NO FUEL and NOWHERE to go (not fault of pilot) EXCEPT to VL (or slow land) on a suitable nearby spot. Let the worrywarts fume over getting the aircraft airborne again but it is in ONE PIECE and possibly able to do so once help arrives.

 

[SpazSinbad]

RAAF News Special Edition Story about setting up AUSTERE BASE Bachelor during Ex. Pitch Black 2018 attached. http://www.defence.gov.au/Publications/NewsPapers/Raaf/editions/6015/6015.pdf (5Mb)

"...“We are good at supporting maneuver with our tactical transport aircraft and Australia’s Army aviation capability, including the Tiger Reconnaissance Helicopter, but what we need to do is move to the next level of support to maneuver the most lethal part of our air power capability across a range of airfield options.”..." Pitch Black 2018: RAAF Perspectives - Second Line of Defense

 

[ASSAIL]

RAAF News Special Edition Story about setting up AUSTERE BASE Bachelor during Ex. Pitch Black 2018 attached. http://www.defence.gov.au/Publications/NewsPapers/Raaf/editions/6015/6015.pdf (5Mb)

And which included a comprehensive medical facility (turn off the annoying piano tinkle) flown in from Brisbane.

 

[John Newman]

A very pleasant surprise today!!

I was sitting on my balcony (in Northern Sydney) today, when I heard the very distinctive 'thump, thump' of a P&W Radial engine, not something you hear every day. To be fair, I do hear and see at least one or two DHC Beaver float planes go over regularly.

But there was something different, something a bit more than one P&W Radial going thump thump, a familiar sound that I hadn't heard for a long long time.

So I looked up, and guess what? It was as Caribou!!

Obviously one of the two HARS airworthy Caribous, either A4-210 or A4-234, wasn't close enough to see any specific details, but it had to be one or the other.

I certainly miss the days when the Caribous and older Herc's were stretching from one end to the other of the flight line at Richmond and it wasn't unusual to hear 'thump, thump' at least once or twice a week.

Those were the days!!!

Cheers,