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

[t68]

I have previously read on this thread the idea of buying additional P8's and giving them more launch points, to carry a bigger load of weapons. Could an additional 12 or so P8s configured for an attack role help solve this problem?

I thought of that myself and remember reading something along those lines, but it must be remembered that the P8 is a commercial aeroplane and will not survive in contested areas and air defence will see it coming from a long way off, whereas B21 is design primarily to intrude into contested airspace with its low observable design and carry far more munitions than P8, I'm not even sure that the RAAF GBU-10 would even fit in the bomb bay

But I suppose say 4 aircraft with additional bomb carrying capacity to be used as secondary CAS in uncontested airspace might be something to consider, also don't forget that the British auxiliary tanker Wye was bombed by a lone C130 with 8x 500lb bombs with one score a direct hit but failed to explode during the Falkland's War

 

[Boagrius]

I guess it all comes back to what was said earlier - a question of what problems the ADF is supposed to be able to solve. Saying the ADF needs better long range strike is a bit arbitrary without reasoning as to why.

Yes we once delivered long range strike via gravity bombs from the F111, but that capability is now obsolete and retired.

With a clearer picture of exactly what our long range strike capability ought to be able to achieve you can then start to look at how to get there via the joint force (not just RAAF).

 

[south]

I agree with @ngatimozart - my read of that article was using AIR 6000 as an example of why rushing to decision isn't always good, and highlighting that making decisions without considering a holistic approach is generally a gamble. I agree with him too - I think that AIR 6000 was flawed and the all in gamble on F-35 isn't necessarily in the Joint Force's benefit. There is also some very good questions about the design time, the....creative....assessment of Lockheed's marketing documents and the obsolete when introduced issues that are bigger than the ADF. Note that the last one I don't hold anyone in uniform or civilians accountable for - there has to be a better way sure; but what that way is I have no idea.

But all of this is kinda ironic looking at B-21 supporters....that seem to be holding a solution looking for a problem.

AIR 6000 was to replace F-111s and F/A-18s. I've seen some work recently that suggests some are trying to forget about the first one; but the F-35 is a replacement for the Pigs. That has been.....massaged by the RAAF as the first three Sqn will be 3, 75 and 77 - with a claimed need for another 30 JSF for 1 and 6 Sqn. That decision still hasn't been made.

Whilst the decision to purchase the JSF was rushed, as it stands the JSF is the correct aircraft now - if you want to have a multirole capability to fight a high end threat. If you don't - you can act as the RCAF has and delay the decision either ending up with a gapped capability, or no capability. They may well be proven correct. There wasn't, and still isn't, an alternative available now that would be viable in the face of currently operational high end air or surface threats.

Air6000 Phase 2C has never been approved, and could readily - as we have seen with other programs - be cancelled. In the time it has taken Air6000 phase 2A/2B to come to fruition the strategic outlook has changed; firstly no one saw that the F-35 would take so long to sort its life out. Secondly no one, including the US, saw the rate of modernisation and build up of the Chinese Armed forces. If a decision is made to shelve not to pursue 30x JSF in Air6000 2C and pursue a different system because the JSF is not viable / effective is that not fundamentally correct and responsible? Or should we stick with a purchase when the fundamental driver has changed? [Seasprite / OPV] Is this not what we are suggesting - avoid making an early decision without examining all facts?

In the long term the Super Hornet acquisition and stagger with F-35 entry has given the RAAF tremendous flexibility to rotate new systems into service in a less than 3 decade timeline which has been a bane of block obsolescence since the Konfrontasi era where all three services were upgraded - and again in the late 80's / 90's. This will only benefit the ADF as a whole.

But - the strike role is so much more than a F-111 now. In the 1970s the F-111 was it - it was the long-range strike capability. Now we have so many options - all of which share one main thing: they don't have a crew. Our current strike platforms are DDG, FFG, FFH, SS, F-35, F/A-18, P-8 and L8113. Also a bunch of computer savvy peoples in dark, air-conditioned rooms. All of them have options that beat a F-111, and in many cases can beat the B-21. Furthermore, what ASPI has forgotten in their latest "articles" is that they can all leave Australia.... So if I want to strike....5000 km from Amberley, I don't have to leave from Amberley. I could leave from, Diego Garcia. Or Guam. Or Singapore. Or Tripoli. Or.... The other advantage is that missiles are cheap. A B-2 is ~$2 bn and a AGM-186 is about $2 m. So I can buy 1000 AGM-186 for a B-2. That's....a lot of options and firepower. And I risk - no one.

The fundamental difference is that if the ADF were to pursue something akin to a B-21 that it is survivable and brings some of the things that Air Power can bring to the fight such as speed and range. A B-21 will likely carry about 20 JASSM class weapons (e.g. B2 has 16 and B-1 has 24). How many Mk41 cells would be allocated by a single Hobart and maybe two Hunters to BGM-109 (maybe 30 - 40?) and will they use them all at once? and is it enough to saturate the IADS? and what happens the next night when you want a follow up on a different target set 500NM away but the LPH is going the other direction?

TLDR - our ex-CAFs have forgotten they signed off that the F-35 could do the job of a F-111. And they forget it's a Joint Force now....

I don't think they do; they didn't make it to the top of their respective service by being daft or close minded. I think they are highlighting the strategic assumptions made in 2003 have changed; examining an aspirational force structure for 2030/2035 isn't necessarily a silly thing to do.

 

[seaspear]

Perhaps there could be merit in joining Japan in the development of a sixth generation fighter that may be long range and supplement the f35a ,this would not require significant purchases to start with but investment another possibility is the U.K Tempest, these aircraft may be ready for production at the end of the S.H lifespan
Defence Connect

 

[ngatimozart]

Perhaps there could be merit in joining Japan in the development of a sixth generation fighter that may be long range and supplement the f35a ,this would not require significant purchases to start with but investment another possibility is the U.K Tempest, these aircraft may be ready for production at the end of the S.H lifespan
Defence Connect

If you were to go down that route, the Japanese option would probably be less risky than the pommy one and it would be a good foreign and defence policy initiative. My reasoning is that the pommy pollies and MOD bureaucrats will create a mess of the program as they have done with most pommy defence programs and the costs will escalate and delays will grow ever so long. If the Swedes and Italians were doing it with say the Germans then it would have good potential, but they aren't. The Japanese are no slouches and I would suggest that they are capable of designing and building an excellent platform. Their biggest problem has been their low production runs, but if Australia was to be part of the program that would change with the likelihood of export orders to third parties. There is a lot besides money that Australia could take to the table in such a partnership.

 

[Stampede]

P8 major problem is that it doesn't carry any missiles of any significant range. Harpoon/Slam-er are ~300 km. It isn't that stealthy either. Flying something like a P8 within 300km of an airbase is probably not a great idea. Fitting them with NSM or/and LRASM would give them a significant improvement in terms of strike. NSM is more likely to get through, LRASM gives best of all worlds with long range, stealth, sensors and punch. I don't think the airforce sees this as even a discussion, they want a dedicated bomber, like we have to bomb the Germans.

P8 has significant payload and significant range. 5 internal and 6 external on each P8 is pretty significant. All loaded with LRASM would be 12 tons (about what a F-111 could carry), verse the B2 which has a 18 t payload (and I would assume B21 would likely be around that). Combined with what our F-35 and SH force and carry, it really doesn't seem to indicate a hole that needs to be filled.

The P8 is a lot better than the P3. The original plan was that the P3 would replace the F-111 strike capability. Which is when we started to look at Super Hornets.

Now we have Superhornets, F35's and P8's. NSM's fitted internally into F-35's is a great long range strike package. LRASM on P8's and Super Hornets would be very complimentary. Combined with Subs and surface ships, that is plenty capability for a nation like Australia with no obvious place to bomb.

You could add a squadron of F-35B's, a carrier, 4 x more P8's, all the LRASM we can carry, dedicated 16 cell VLS launchers on each of the subs, bump the Hunters to 48VLS and still have change for less than a 3rd of what acquiring and operating b21's would be. B21's that would only be able to bomb Indonesia, Singapore, PNG and Fiji from the mainland.

The RAAF has a good mix of kit.
We just need to exploit all that we have.
As to the P 8, I agree it has a lot of potential and suggest it will also evolve as a long range bomb truck..
Would such a platform have limitations? absolutely
Would an adversary consider our long range aerial reach, and would that affect the way they conduct their business. Absolutely.

For a medium sized air power we are doing very well without a B21, or other such platform that is really beyond us on many levels.


Regards S

 

[seaspear]

Europe’s fighter jets of the future on collision course?
The above article suggests that Europe is still at the mercy of regional self interest if there was a consolidated effort by all those interested it would more than likely get up

 

[John Fedup]

Europe’s fighter jets of the future on collision course?
The above article suggests that Europe is still at the mercy of regional self interest if there was a consolidated effort by all those interested it would more than likely get up

Brexit has likely killed any chance of a single EU 6th (5th) fighter. Even without Brexit, Airbus military projects saw friction over workshare amongst partners. Whether Europe can afford two projects for a new fighter, perhaps the US decision for a single source is an answer. Then again, if the Boeing X-32 wasn't such a $hit design, perhaps having two vendors would have lit fires under both vendors' sixes.

 

[seaspear]

The length of time the Eurofghter took to develop and cost is something to avoid repeating but coming back to the R.A.A.F needs perhaps now is the time to partner up with a country that looks to address a similar need ,when production starts of these sixth generation fighters the f35 will be over twenty years old

 

[Massive]

The force structure that was said to be ignored is in fact in the process of coming into being.
HIMARS, NASAMS and strategic strike through new subs rather than non existent strike bombers.

True - though my sense that without a clear strategy the preference for a balanced force leaves a lot of capabilities acquired in penny packets. Few capabilities are overweight to reflect strategic priorities.

The submarines are probably the only example of a clear strategic decision leading to a capability being overweight.

HIMARS will probably be acquired in regiment strength - if prioritising defence of continent and approaches should it be army group/brigade strength?

Other examples might include not replacing the ARH, reducing NRH-90 numbers, reducing Navy major combatant numbers etc.

Ultimately there is a balanced force because there is nothing to focus on.

Not sure there is any prospect of this changing in the near term.

Regards,

Massive

 

[t68]

Its ironic with all the talk over the last few days about B21 that the and in the coming decades it might be a bomber force of the USAF with B1/2 retiring and that leaves the B-52 and the future B-21 to make up USAF’s bomber fleet. wow I never thought they would even think about retiring the B1/2 before the B52


http://www.airforcemag.com/Features...nt-Now-Part-of-Arsenal-Plane-Discussions.aspx

 

[south]

If you were to go down that route, the Japanese option would probably be less risky than the pommy one and it would be a good foreign and defence policy initiative. My reasoning is that the pommy pollies and MOD bureaucrats will create a mess of the program as they have done with most pommy defence programs and the costs will escalate and delays will grow ever so long. If the Swedes and Italians were doing it with say the Germans then it would have good potential, but they aren't. The Japanese are no slouches and I would suggest that they are capable of designing and building an excellent platform. Their biggest problem has been their low production runs, but if Australia was to be part of the program that would change with the likelihood of export orders to third parties. There is a lot besides money that Australia could take to the table in such a partnership.

The Brits are the driving force behind a lot of the improvements on Typhoon. The program has been supremely crippled by the multinational aspect, and from the UK side of the house the GFC set it back significantly as well. At present there isn’t sufficient budget to do everything they could do with the aircraft.

Having said that the UK engineering has more experience building and upgrading fighter aircraft and fighter engines than the Japanese. The Japanese made a mess of the F-2, hardly a clean sheet design and have only built other fighters under licence.

 

[ngatimozart]

The Brits are the driving force behind a lot of the improvements on Typhoon. The program has been supremely crippled by the multinational aspect, and from the UK side of the house the GFC set it back significantly as well. At present there isn’t sufficient budget to do everything they could do with the aircraft.

Having said that the UK engineering has more experience building and upgrading fighter aircraft and fighter engines than the Japanese. The Japanese made a mess of the F-2, hardly a clean sheet design and have only built other fighters under licence.

Yep, but the problem the poms have is not the engineering and design side, but the pollie and bureaucratic side which more often than not stuffs up a completely great defence product. To whit, the TSR2 or as you have said the Typhoon. The Japanese on the other hand may have stuffed up their F-2, but they will have learned from that lesson and I would suggest that their 6th gen aircraft will be less error prone.

 

[MrConservative]

Yep, but the problem the poms have is not the engineering and design side, but the pollie and bureaucratic side which more often than not stuffs up a completely great defence product. To whit, the TSR2 or as you have said the Typhoon. The Japanese on the other hand may have stuffed up their F-2, but they will have learned from that lesson and I would suggest that their 6th gen aircraft will be less error prone.

To be fair the funding pipeline for further Typhoon development is not just a lack of will by the UK but all the Euro venture partners, who at times are more byzantine and truculent with defence project funding than Whitehall.

The F2 program at Komaki was a LM / MHI venture with a number of other US firms in Japan as subcontractors - so not totally Japanese. A bit fraught to begin with two design and engineering cultures being merged together but the end result was a very capable aircraft and a number of successful follow on projects and ventures. Some aspects that the Japanese bought to the table were very ahead of their time such as the use of composites which stemmed from ground breaking research from Gifu University engineering department and the integration of AESA radar. World firsts in fighter aircraft. Tech that flowed directly back to the US as part of the venture agreement.

 

[t68]

Another article on the B21 for the RAAF, just a gloss over on Chinese containment, no real depth analysis

Should Washington Sell The B-21 Bomber To Australia?

 

[ngatimozart]

Not aimed at any one in particular, but any posters thinking that the ADF can / will acquire the B-21 better think again because that is fantasyland stuff and us Mods don't like fantasyland stuff. It's also against the rules. Green ink at the moment, but if pushed can soon change to the grumpy red.

10 days ago I posted the above I was being nice expecting people to abide, however it seems that I was mistaken. No more and time for the grumpy red. Any discussion of ADF acquisition of the B-21 is off limits anywhere on DT forums. This is non-negotiable and no correspondence will be entered into.

 

[ASSAIL]

The local Katherine rag has printed a report on the upgrades to RAAF Tindal in order for them to operate both the F35 and MRRTs.
Plenty of cash being splashed and this will be a huge benefit for the town which by the way has just endured an entire week with daytime temps above 40degsC

Billion dollars to make a touch down at Tindal

 

[Bob53]

Does this mean that you suggest we have large fleets of aircraft with specialist roles in numbers sufficient to do....what?

Or that we should look for an AEW platform with Tanking facilities and Maritime Surveillance and interdiction capabilities?

oldsig

Nah mate not suggesting anything here really. Reads better if you include the full quote from me but further conversation is banned I think.

 

[seaspear]

This is an interesting article refering to the development of the Loyal Wingman" suggesting testing is on track the qustion would be would the R.A.A.F be a customer ?
Boeing progresses unmanned combat jet programme – Defence Blog

 

[hairyman]

I would have thought it was a no brainer, that the RAAF be a customer.

Now that we know that the US is not going to replace the F18G wrecked over there, what do we do? Keep our fleet to 11 F18G's, replace the wrecked one ourselfs, bringing our F18G fleet back to 12, or order a few more to increase our fleet to 14 or 16?