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

[OPSSG]

Just a thought. It would take a few JSM with a 125 kg (276 lb) warhead to knock out a PLAN Type 055 CCG, but a lesser number of LRASM which has a 1,000 lb warhead. There are targets that don't require a 1,000 lb warhead, with such a warhead being a waste, and conversely there are targets where a 1,000 lb warhead as an absolute requirement. Would it not be possible that the ADF may look at acquiring some JSM and some LRASM? I am not saying that they will, but the possibility exists that they might.

Given a choice, I would rather use the Australian F-35As to carry a missile similar to the Advanced Anti Radiation Guided Missile — Extended Range (AARGM - ER), to conduct Direct and Time Sensitive Strike, instead of the JSM. IMHO, the priority is to shutdown an enemy task group’s air defence radars — otherwise it is futile, given the anti-missile capability of such enemy task group. I note that the USAF is requesting information for modifications to the US Navy’s AARGM-ER programme that would make that weapon suitable for its F-35A. The so-called Stand-in Attack Weapon (SiAW) would “heavily leverage” the Northrop Grumman-manufactured AARGM-ER, according to a request for information posted online on 9 Jan 2020.

In an interview with Defence24.pl, AARGM programme Director at the Joint NAVAIR Command, fusing the naval aviation of US Navy and USMC, Capt. Al Mousseau suggests the following: “AARGM-ER will incorporate hardware and software modifications to improve AGM-88E AARGM capabilities and meet the approved requirements. The development timeline supports an Initial Operational Capability in FY2023”. In practical terms, the above means that the new AARGM variant could be offered to export users in the middle of this decade. Ashton Carter who was the US Secretary of Defense at the time, back in February 2016, listed the AARGM-ER missile as one of the elements which would contribute to bolstering of the US Navy strike abilities in the conditions in which enemy uses numerous countermeasures, alongside the LRASM anti-ship missiles and modified Tomahawk missiles.

In this Direct and Time Sensitive Strike programme, Northrop Grumman (formerly, Orbital ATK) is the US Navy’s prime contractor. AARGM is a cooperative development program carried out by the US Navy and the Italian Air Force. The company was also awarded a sole-source contract to analyse the AARGM front end for integration on the AARGM-ER. The acquisition strategy for AARGM-ER Engineering and Manufacturing Development will be officially approved at Milestone B, in FY2018.

 

[Redlands18]

Suggests that Super Hornets are here to stay? Well, that's a big assumption, and we all know what happens when we assume, 'It makes an ASS out of U and ME'!! I don't know how anyone could tie the potential procurement of LRASM to Super Hornet staying for a full service life for ever and a day.

As I mentioned in the post above, LRASM has a much broader use than just being integrated to the Super Hornet fleet, I agree that if we were talking of a weapons system that was only for use on a Super Hornet, then maybe your assumption would be much closer to the mark.

You may end up being correct that Super Hornet is going to have a full service life beyond 2030, but I still think we are 4-5 years away from knowing if the Supers will be in or out of service and replaced by that potential last batch of F-35s
Anyway mate, just my opinion of course too!

Cheers,

John the FMS notice specifically states that the LRASM would be used off the F-18s and did not mention any other Platforms at all and this is what i based my supposition on.
According to the DWP the Shornet replacement decision is due in the early 2020s, my feeling is that if this sale goes through that will probably mean the replacement decision will not happen until somewhat later.

 

[ADMk2]

Given a choice, I would rather use the Australian F-35As to carry a missile similar to the Advanced Anti Radiation Guided Missile — Extended Range (AARGM - ER), to conduct Direct and Time Sensitive Strike, instead of the JSM. IMHO, the priority is to shutdown an enemy task group’s air defence radars — otherwise it is futile, given the anti-missile capability of such enemy task group. I note that the USAF is requesting information for modifications to the US Navy’s AARGM-ER programme that would make that weapon suitable for its F-35A. The so-called Stand-in Attack Weapon (SiAW) would “heavily leverage” the Northrop Grumman-manufactured AARGM-ER, according to a request for information posted online on 9 Jan 2020.

In an interview with Defence24.pl, AARGM programme Director at the Joint NAVAIR Command, fusing the naval aviation of US Navy and USMC, Capt. Al Mousseau suggests the following: “AARGM-ER will incorporate hardware and software modifications to improve AGM-88E AARGM capabilities and meet the approved requirements. The development timeline supports an Initial Operational Capability in FY2023”. In practical terms, the above means that the new AARGM variant could be offered to export users in the middle of this decade. Ashton Carter who was the US Secretary of Defense at the time, back in February 2016, listed the AARGM-ER missile as one of the elements which would contribute to bolstering of the US Navy strike abilities in the conditions in which enemy uses numerous countermeasures, alongside the LRASM anti-ship missiles and modified Tomahawk missiles.

In this Direct and Time Sensitive Strike programme, Northrop Grumman (formerly, Orbital ATK) is the US Navy’s prime contractor. AARGM is a cooperative development program carried out by the US Navy and the Italian Air Force. The company was also awarded a sole-source contract to analyse the AARGM front end for integration on the AARGM-ER. The acquisition strategy for AARGM-ER Engineering and Manufacturing Development will be officially approved at Milestone B, in FY2018.

It is not unlikely that ADF will operate all 3. RAAF already operates HARM-B and AARGM, a future upgrade to AARGM-ER in time, does not seem out of the question. DWP16’s IIP, statement that ‘RAAF will acquire a mix of high speed and long ranged air-launched weapons’ seems to support such an idea.

JSM is already integrated onto F-35A, or at least will be under Block IV while LRASM is not (yet). As Super Hornet did initially with AIM-9X and JSOW-C and legacy Hornets did with JASSM and ASRAAM, RAAF has demonstrated over many years, a distinct preference to acquire a range of weapons and effects (including effects over varying ranges) and is seemingly happy to go with integrated weapons, rather than (again -> AGM-142) going down the path of integrating new weapons onto it’s platforms, even if it means carrying separate inventories of systems...

 

[StingrayOZ]

As many feel JSM and LRASM are competitors they are basically in different classes. Weight, mission, platform, etc.

JSM is small. It fits in weapon bays like the F-35 internally. NSM is smaller than harpoon, so you can replace a 8 ship launcher with 12 and can even bit fitted on tiny patrol boats. Its pretty stealthy because its so small and has passive seekers. Its based around mission killing a target rather than sinking it. 400kg, 100nm (lowlowlow), 125kg warhead. It is an assassin weapon. What you carry if your at the very edge, want stealth, want it to go in completely silently, but you gotta get close. Its pretty much designed for the F-35. It is European.

LRASM is huge. Its warhead is heavier than the entire JSM missile. Over 1100kg. 500+km. Its even heavier than harpoon, so can't easily be swapped in like for like and is more likely to sit in a VLS than a box on the deck. LRASM is good for big unstealthy platforms. P8. B2. B52. F-18 SH. While it can be carried externally on the f-35 is probably not ideal, and loading multiples won't be fun. Hence the lack of priority to integrate it with that platform. Its a big missile with a lot of smarts and can make decisions. Doesn't fit internally into anything. Is american.

I don't see them as competitors, and I can see valid reasons to acquire both. It seems likely the USN will operate both.

We have two torpedos in our inventory, who overlap very much so. I would expect JSM/LRASM would be completely doable in RAAF inventory.

 

[aussienscale]

Loyal Wingman is making some good, and in my mind, surpising progress with the first fuselage section being completed for one of the 3 prototypes being constructed. Will be watching this with interest as it progresses.

Defence Connect

Cheers

 

[ASSAIL]

Question for our light blue members re RAAF Base Richmond.
How does the base handle the current floods, is there full access and is the base operationally degraded as a result?
Richmond, Windsor bridges submerged for first time in 28 years

 

[At lakes]

Question for our light blue members re RAAF Base Richmond.
How does the base handle the current floods, is there full access and is the base operationally degraded as a result?
Richmond, Windsor bridges submerged for first time in 28 years

For possible consideration if flooding continues.

 

[Bob53]

As many feel JSM and LRASM are competitors they are basically in different classes. Weight, mission, platform, etc.

JSM is small. It fits in weapon bays like the F-35 internally. NSM is smaller than harpoon, so you can replace a 8 ship launcher with 12 and can even bit fitted on tiny patrol boats. Its pretty stealthy because its so small and has passive seekers. Its based around mission killing a target rather than sinking it. 400kg, 100nm (lowlowlow), 125kg warhead. It is an assassin weapon. What you carry if your at the very edge, want stealth, want it to go in completely silently, but you gotta get close. Its pretty much designed for the F-35. It is European.

LRASM is huge. Its warhead is heavier than the entire JSM missile. Over 1100kg. 500+km. Its even heavier than harpoon, so can't easily be swapped in like for like and is more likely to sit in a VLS than a box on the deck. LRASM is good for big unstealthy platforms. P8. B2. B52. F-18 SH. While it can be carried externally on the f-35 is probably not ideal, and loading multiples won't be fun. Hence the lack of priority to integrate it with that platform. Its a big missile with a lot of smarts and can make decisions. Doesn't fit internally into anything. Is american.

I don't see them as competitors, and I can see valid reasons to acquire both. It seems likely the USN will operate both.

We have two torpedos in our inventory, who overlap very much so. I would expect JSM/LRASM would be completely doable in RAAF inventory.

This and earlier posts from Nagimozart make a lot of sense. We dont have single calibre weapons for every instance and we hopefully have the right choice of the right missile for the job with both JSM and LRASM. LRASM also appears to have an upgrade path to potentially 1000Km range albeit with a lower weight warhead.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Question for our light blue members re RAAF Base Richmond.
How does the base handle the current floods, is there full access and is the base operationally degraded as a result?
Richmond, Windsor bridges submerged for first time in 28 years

Not light blue but I drive past it every day.
They built a pretty impressive "flood proof bridge" (Hawkesbury valley way) to it, so getting to and from the RAAF base is generally doable. The base itself it pretty high up and is usually not a flood risk concern during most floods.

Windsor bridge is being replaced and is ~150 years old. Richmond bridge is also earmarked for replacement, but its on the other side of Richmond to the airbase.

Going by:
Hawkesbury Nepean floods

It would need a 1:100 chance per year flood, to impact flight operations for the full runway. However, this would likely not impact the C27j located there and C130's could probably work as well at lighter load.

But it would really need to be above 1:500 chance to serious threat to any planes at the facility. Approaching maxium possible flood height.

That being said, traffic was heavy all around that area, as local flooding due to blocked drains and poor design and old infrastructure.

The Austere helicopter base out at Wilberforce is currently inaccessible by road. So good thing the floods put out the fires.

Richmond loves its airbase. People would fight to keep it.

 

[John Newman]

Question for our light blue members re RAAF Base Richmond.
How does the base handle the current floods, is there full access and is the base operationally degraded as a result?
Richmond, Windsor bridges submerged for first time in 28 years

Assail, StingrayOZ beat me to the punch.

In the past when the river flooded (if you were coming from the East along Windsor Road), you could get as far as the pub at McGrath Hill, then you came to the flood plain between there and Windsor (the East Windsor Bridge), and that is where you stopped until the flooding subsided (usually the Windsor Bridge, to the West is flooded too).

But as StingrayOZ mentioned, the Hawkesbury Valley Way bypass was built (a decade or two ago?) and getting to Windsor from the East is not a problem. Then of course on the Western side of Windsor is the Richmond Bridge (just before the Eastern edge or RAAF Base Richmond), if it's flooded too then you are screwed getting to the base from the East.

There is another way, and that is to head North from Penrith to Richmond (via Londonderry), I've never heard of Richmond being cut off from the south (might be wrong?).

Google Maps

Cheers,

 

[t68]

Not light blue but I drive past it every day.
They built a pretty impressive "flood proof bridge" (Hawkesbury valley way) to it, so getting to and from the RAAF base is generally doable. The base itself it pretty high up and is usually not a flood risk concern during most floods.

Windsor bridge is being replaced and is ~150 years old. Richmond bridge is also earmarked for replacement, but its on the other side of Richmond to the airbase.

Going by:
Hawkesbury Nepean floods

It would need a 1:100 chance per year flood, to impact flight operations for the full runway. However, this would likely not impact the C27j located there and C130's could probably work as well at lighter load.

But it would really need to be above 1:500 chance to serious threat to any planes at the facility. Approaching maxium possible flood height.

That being said, traffic was heavy all around that area, as local flooding due to blocked drains and poor design and old infrastructure.

The Austere helicopter base out at Wilberforce is currently inaccessible by road. So good thing the floods put out the fires.

Richmond loves its airbase. People would fight to keep it.

Windsor would most likely still flood, I haven’t been out that way in years. But do remember one time when I was working for the government transport DAS I was picking up and delivery sensative EO from RAAF Richmond on behalf of the US with a round trip to Mulwala and back, we had an armed escort from the APS wel anyway a god almighty storm hit Sydney and the road flooded under the rail bridge in Windsor, I got thru alright in the CH Mack but poor old mates from APS weren’t so lucky they drowned the car. It’s only a few kilometres up to the base and was on a timeline to transfer onto a C17 I turned up minus escort and got a told off for continuing the journey without them, but had a laugh about it anyway.

 

[StingrayOZ]

we had an armed escort from the APS wel anyway a god almighty storm hit Sydney and the road flooded under the rail bridge in Windsor, I got thru alright in the CH Mack but poor old mates from APS weren’t so lucky they drowned the car. It’s only a few kilometres up to the base and was on a timeline to transfer onto a C17 I turned up minus escort and got a told off for continuing the journey without them, but had a laugh about it anyway.

HA! Bloody Windsor rail bridge was flooded today and as two large semis drove onto the other side to avoid the pooled water from the poor drainage on the high side of the road. There was no water in the morning, so it was just from the ~<25mm of rain we had today. Love it how APS couldn't survive Windsor...

There are patches where things all go wrong, but its not really connected to river height, its just local flooding due to improper/blocked drains/poor design. Bloody council lets the whole side down. Which is why people want the RAAF base, if it wasn't for that, we wouldn't have anything. One of the key reasons to build the Hawkesbury Valley way was the base.

And the NSW government put forward that Richmond base could be where the Corona virus.
https://www.smh.com.au/national/syd...vour-of-christmas-island-20200207-p53ynn.html

There is another way, and that is to head North from Penrith to Richmond (via Londonderry), I've never heard of Richmond being cut off from the south (might be wrong?).

You can do it that way as well, in all but a super flood it would be ok. Richmond and its air base are usually ok. Its north Richmond over the other side of the river that gets cut off, and people have to go to Penrith via Lithgow. There are regions of Windsor/Richmond and Penrith that will flood in bigger floods, at which point the RAAF base will likely be a key evacuation point/emergency centre.

 

[ngatimozart]

And the NSW government put forward that Richmond base could be where the Corona virus.
https://www.smh.com.au/national/syd...vour-of-christmas-island-20200207-p53ynn.html

As an aside, our corona virus evacuee's ex Wuhan, are all quaranteed at the army / navy base on the end of the Whangaparoa Peninsula north of Auckland. They are fully catered with fibre internet and some are in camper vans. That includes foreign evacuees who came back as well. The Aussies on the evac flight were met at Auckland International Airport by Australian govt officials and promptly flown to Christmas Island. The Aussie plane was already waiting and ready to go when the Air NZ B777 arrived from Wuhan. General feeling here in NZ is that it's pretty cruel treatment of Wuhan evacuees by Aussie govt.

 

[ASSAIL]

As an aside, our corona virus evacuee's ex Wuhan, are all quaranteed at the army / navy base on the end of the Whangaparoa Peninsula north of Auckland. They are fully catered with fibre internet and some are in camper vans. That includes foreign evacuees who came back as well. The Aussies on the evac flight were met at Auckland International Airport by Australian govt officials and promptly flown to Christmas Island. The Aussie plane was already waiting and ready to go when the Air NZ B777 arrived from Wuhan. General feeling here in NZ is that it's pretty cruel treatment of Wuhan evacuees by Aussie govt.

I can’t agree.
The detention centre at CI is a very large and well equipped facility with all the mod cons. The 250 odd people there are living in a centre designed for thousands.
The Inpex workers village in Howard Springs 15mls down the highway from Darwin is a veritable resort. swimming pool, sports facilities, comfortable air condition seperate accommodation, if I was single I wouldn’t mind living there!
Anyway the CI evacuees should be home at the end of this week and given the uncertainties surrounding the crisis I think it was well handled by our govt.

Mods, please move to the Corona thread if required, I plead innocence, Ngati started it!

 

[John Fedup]

As an aside, our corona virus evacuee's ex Wuhan, are all quaranteed at the army / navy base on the end of the Whangaparoa Peninsula north of Auckland. They are fully catered with fibre internet and some are in camper vans. That includes foreign evacuees who came back as well. The Aussies on the evac flight were met at Auckland International Airport by Australian govt officials and promptly flown to Christmas Island. The Aussie plane was already waiting and ready to go when the Air NZ B777 arrived from Wuhan. General feeling here in NZ is that it's pretty cruel treatment of Wuhan evacuees by Aussie govt.

I guess pollies see the obvious downstroke of this virus spreading due to failing to aggressively quarantine people. Better to take the heat for inconveniencing people. That being said, some health experts dispute the effectiveness.

 

[oldsig127]

It would need a 1:100 chance per year flood, to impact flight operations for the full runway. However, this would likely not impact the C27j located there and C130's could probably work as well at lighter load.

Shouldn't affect the C-27J for long. Aren't 35 SQN moving to Amberley ?

oldsig

 

[StingrayOZ]

Yes, but Richmond is a major base, it sees plenty of C17/C27J/C130 action. An Richmond is still the home of the c-130's for now. Of course like every ADF site, the local council wants to sell it off and put highrise apartments on it. Well the mayor did until he got done for corruption and bribe taking from developers. Marise Payne also put a stop to that as well.

IMO it is important to have a military airbase in Sydney. Given recent disasters have highlighted how important it is to have one. Part of the reason the 27J's were initially IOC up in Richmond is because its easier and quicker with new types and all the c-130 capability that has been built up there over 70 years of operating hercs.

 

[76mmGuns]

Does anyone know how long it will take for Australia to receive it's 200 LRASM's?

It seems the US is buying around the same number between 2020-2025

As China expands navy, US begins stockpiling ship-killing missiles

Has there been an actual launch of the LRASM from a F-35? i haven't actually found an article saying this, although the wiki entry says the F-35 is a launch platform for it

 

[Boagrius]

No LRASM isn't integrated on the F35 yet. I suspect it will be in due course but JSM will probably come first.

 

[Massive]

It is not unlikely that ADF will operate all 3.

And if there is a modern surface threat - either single or in a taskforce - ideally all three would arrive on target at roughly the same time.

Regards,

Massive