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

[ngatimozart]

Senior unnamed Boeing personnel is all I can offer....

Ok, cool. In future please cite as:
Personal Comment from senior unnamed xxxx personnel SEC
where the xxxx is the organisation and SEC means that it is for security reasons.

I don't. In a financially constrained world spending money on three more P-8s gets us exactly nothing - especially if the RAAF decide to set up a second squadron. I'd much rather spend the money on something else that will do the Joint Force more. Even with the stand-off range of LRASM; big, fat, slow aircraft are just targets. The P-8 meets that criteria.

Spend the money on better permanent sensors - SOSUS networks across the north. Then the P-8s can be targeted. Or spend the money on sovereign RORSATs. Integrate onto F-35A. Integrate into long-range fires. Or look beyond the maritime domain - there are many holes in the Joint Force much more important than three more aeroplanes

Earth orbit is getting somewhat crowded now with Elon Musk putting his massive Starlink constellation up. Something like 12,000 satellites . RORSATS etc., also are HVAs and would be targeted by the Chicoms and the Russians because normally they are large satellites and follow predictable orbits. However, modern technology has minaturised the sensors significantly so it is feasible that such satellites could possible be cube satellites and even hidden amongst the Starlink constellation, or be in LEO and easily and quickly replaced if or when knocked out of orbit. Australia certainly has the radar smarts for such an endeavour and along with the radar, IR and visual sensors would be required. There are a lot of spaceborne sensors used in the geosciences and earth sciences fields that could be utilised and / or modified for such activities to start with. Their resolution can be pretty good. In NZ we are quite capable of doing the same and we have the launch vehicle and 2 launch pads. Just no political will to go down that road.

 

[Todjaeger]

I don't. In a financially constrained world spending money on three more P-8s gets us exactly nothing - especially if the RAAF decide to set up a second squadron. I'd much rather spend the money on something else that will do the Joint Force more. Even with the stand-off range of LRASM; big, fat, slow aircraft are just targets. The P-8 meets that criteria.

Spend the money on better permanent sensors - SOSUS networks across the north. Then the P-8s can be targeted. Or spend the money on sovereign RORSATs. Integrate onto F-35A. Integrate into long-range fires. Or look beyond the maritime domain - there are many holes in the Joint Force much more important than three more aeroplanes

To me, part of the question would centre on just how much coin was available to spend, and how quickly it would be either available or must be spent by. I have some experience with block grants of funding which have to be spent b xx otherwise the unspent funds are automatically returned. This leads to either reduced funding in the future since not all the initial grant funding was exhausted, and/or extra (and sometimes even stupid) kit being purchased, sometimes at prices other than the best, just to run down the grant accounts.

Three extra P-8A Poseidon's would likely cost ~USD$750 mil. flyaway, and then possibly some extras for additional infrastructure to support them.

Would that extra AUD$1 bil. or thereabouts be sufficient to establish SOSUS networks in the appropriate areas, or add/expand Australian satellites? If one or more of these projects could be accomplished with the same amount of funding as extra P-8's, then I could see making a determination for what would be the 'best' option. OTOH though, if the funding for extra P-8's would be insufficient to actually accomplish one of the above, then I think an additional P-8 buy would be a better option.

 

[John Newman]

The question of more P-8As, or not, could also be coloured by some news in the last few days regarding Triton:

RAAF Triton program at risk? – ADBR

And this:

US to ‘pause’ production of Australia’s Triton drones | The Strategist

The title of the latest issue of Australian Foreign Affairs asks, ‘Can we trust America?’ The case of the MQ-4C Triton unmanned aerial system would suggest the answer is no. The 2016 defence white paper ...

www.aspistrategist.org.au

Normally I don't pay too much attention to some media reports regarding defence matters, especially the general media, but when Andrew McLaughlin of ADBR and formerly of AA (Andrew has been an active member of DT in the past too, I won't say his DT 'user name', but those that know know) writes a piece, it's usually reasonably accurate.

The paragraph that caught my attention is:

As a consequence of the US budget uncertainty, Defence has reportedly been asked to submit three options to the Defence Investment Committee (IC) in early March on how to proceed on the program: to take the US Navy production slots; to delay the program by an estimated two years until US production ramps up; or to abandon the Triton program altogether. Regardless of which option is recommended by the IC, this will either require additional funding and/or approval by the National Security Committee of Cabinet.

The last of the three options is to abandon Triton (hopefully that doesn't happen), but if that option is in fact chosen, we may well see an order for additional P-8A placed sooner than later, and in fact I would imagine that the RAAF might have an argument to procure more than the three additional airframes provided for in the 2016 DWP, the order could in fact be larger to make up for the loss of the Triton capability.

Or we could see some additional P-8A and a potential increase in the MQ-9B Sky Guardian with the Sea Guardian option.

Anyway, it would appear that we may have some sort of announcement from Government sooner than later.

Cheers,

 

[Takao]

To me, part of the question would centre on just how much coin was available to spend, and how quickly it would be either available or must be spent by. I have some experience with block grants of funding which have to be spent b xx otherwise the unspent funds are automatically returned. This leads to either reduced funding in the future since not all the initial grant funding was exhausted, and/or extra (and sometimes even stupid) kit being purchased, sometimes at prices other than the best, just to run down the grant accounts.

Defence's acquisition funding is a little different, generally the amount approved can have excess amounts transferred within a Group or Service. So if SEA 1234 Ph 5 has been given $500 m to buy x, but it only costs $450 m; the extra $50 m can be transferred to SEA 5678 Ph 9. Or put it into future sustainment. It gets tricky with approved / unapproved funding, but that's workable.

Would that extra AUD$1 bil. or thereabouts be sufficient to establish SOSUS networks in the appropriate areas, or add/expand Australian satellites? If one or more of these projects could be accomplished with the same amount of funding as extra P-8's, then I could see making a determination for what would be the 'best' option. OTOH though, if the funding for extra P-8's would be insufficient to actually accomplish one of the above, then I think an additional P-8 buy would be a better option.

Probably not, but that extra money when added to other extra money can do something. And again, it may be that there are risks to the Joint Force beyond the Maritime Domain that are of higher priority. So that money from the extra P-8s may actually be better for the Joint Force to be spent on minehunters. Or self-propelled guns. Or cybers. Or estate upgrades.

a potential increase in the MQ-9B Sky Guardian with the Sea Guardian option.

Noting the USAF just turned off Reaper - perhaps there is an argument that big, slow, fat UAS aren't worth the money anymore? That any modern IADS just kills them.

The last of the three options is to abandon Triton (hopefully that doesn't happen), but if that option is in fact chosen, we may well see an order for additional P-8A placed sooner than later, and in fact I would imagine that the RAAF might have an argument to procure more than the three additional airframes provided for in the 2016 DWP, the order could in fact be larger to make up for the loss of the Triton capability. Or we could see some additional P-8A and a potential increase in the MQ-9B Sky Guardian with the Sea Guardian option.

Never let it be said that the Joint Force is beyond politics. Great to see....sensitive(?) information coming from....a specific part of Russell.....to force the Joint Force's hand....

My favourite has been the RAAF message over the past three years pushing Triton and emphasising it is not a P-8. But then as soon as a possibility that Triton isn't available - the call for more P-8s go out. The reality is these are two very different platforms - and one does not replace the other. Unfortunately, people in blue don't like being given their words back to them.

P-8s don't do surveillance very well at all. Which is fine - they weren't brought to do that exactly. Back of the envelope calc's show that to get something like 75 - 80% of a Triton capability you need 4 - 5 P-8. That's more P-8s than AMG has aircraft if we want that path, with critical workforce issues and $ billions we don't have. Give the P-8 a known datum point they are outstanding at id'ing and killing. But for wide area surveillance, they suck. SOSUS, satellites, other UAS - there are other options for surveillance, some of which may be existing projects that can be accelerated or expanded quickly.

Honestly, and I don't intend this as a criticism of anyone here because the majority of Russell struggle too, but the Triton money doesn't belong to the RAAF. If the platform cannot be purchased, the next priority on the Joint Force's list should be tackled. If that is long range maritime surveillance, fine. But if it's not, then damn. We have many gaps in the Joint Force and carry many risks - which is fine as budgets are limited. But, if Triton is cancelled, the knee-jerk answer should not be more P-8s. It's too kit focused, too domain-specific and ignores the point of a Joint Force by Design.

 

[SteveR]

The question of more P-8As, or not, could also be coloured by some news in the last few days regarding Triton:

RAAF Triton program at risk? – ADBR

And this:

US to ‘pause’ production of Australia’s Triton drones | The Strategist

The title of the latest issue of Australian Foreign Affairs asks, ‘Can we trust America?’ The case of the MQ-4C Triton unmanned aerial system would suggest the answer is no. The 2016 defence white paper ...

www.aspistrategist.org.au

As a consequence of the US budget uncertainty, Defence has reportedly been asked to submit three options to the Defence Investment Committee (IC) in early March on how to proceed on the program: to take the US Navy production slots; to delay the program by an estimated two years until US production ramps up; or to abandon the Triton program altogether. Regardless of which option is recommended by the IC, this will either require additional funding and/or approval by the National Security Committee of Cabinet.

Or we could see some additional P-8A and a potential increase in the MQ-9B Sky Guardian with the Sea Guardian option.

Anyway, it would appear that we may have some sort of announcement from Government sooner than later.

Cheers,

But note there is no more US money for the P-8 or the MQ-9 in FY21 budget proposal:

U.S. Navy Plans To Stop Buying P-8 Poseidon Sub Hunters Despite Growing Undersea Threat

Russia and China are improving their submarine forces, requiring a robust U.S. response.

www.forbes.com

Abrupt End to MQ-9 Production Surprises General Atomics | Air & Space Forces Magazine

A General Atomics official said the company is surprised by the Air Force’s plan to stop buying new MQ-9 Reapers in fiscal 2020.

www.airforcemag.com

Abrupt End Of Air Force MQ-9 Reaper Buys Points To New Focus On Survivable Drones

General Atomics has supplied the backbone of America's drone force for decades. Now that may be ending due to stark tactical realities.

www.thedrive.com

Just added second link with comment on why USAF ends MQ-9 production

 

[Redlands18]

There is provision for a possible 3 more P-8s in the DWP/IIP so we shouldn’t write it off completely yet.

 

[Boagrius]

As Takao suggested earlier, I do wonder about the survivability of the current crop of UAS in the face of a peer adversary. You'd think Triton ought to be able to survive by staying out of reach but PLAN HQ9 derivatives might make this difficult (?).

Strikes me that an MQ25-esque solution would be more future proof (LO) but I am guessing it will be a while before such a platform is available.

 

[ngatimozart]

P-8s don't do surveillance very well at all. Which is fine - they weren't brought to do that exactly. Back of the envelope calc's show that to get something like 75 - 80% of a Triton capability you need 4 - 5 P-8. That's more P-8s than AMG has aircraft if we want that path, with critical workforce issues and $ billions we don't have. Give the P-8 a known datum point they are outstanding at id'ing and killing. But for wide area surveillance, they suck. SOSUS, satellites, other UAS - there are other options for surveillance, some of which may be existing projects that can be accelerated or expanded quickly.

Honestly, and I don't intend this as a criticism of anyone here because the majority of Russell struggle too, but the Triton money doesn't belong to the RAAF. If the platform cannot be purchased, the next priority on the Joint Force's list should be tackled. If that is long range maritime surveillance, fine. But if it's not, then damn. We have many gaps in the Joint Force and carry many risks - which is fine as budgets are limited. But, if Triton is cancelled, the knee-jerk answer should not be more P-8s. It's too kit focused, too domain-specific and ignores the point of a Joint Force by Design.

"P-8s don't do surveillance very well at all". Who told you that load of shit? Do you actually know anything about the P-8 at all?

How much do you know about ASW @Takao ? Subs aren't exactly the easist of things to find. Lets be clear about that from the start and that's why a lot of nations, including Australia, invest a lot of national treasure in them, especially in the Indo Pacific.

If Triton is cancelled then another P-8 tranche acquisition has to be very seriously considered because there is no other platform capable of replacing the lost capability within the short to medium term.

SOSUS? You've got to start that from the get go and how long will it take for that to come online? Where do you place it and how do you prevent the Chicoms and Russians from playing nasty games with it? That is a real security problem.​

​

Overhead Imagery - RORSATS etc? You haven't got any in orbit at the moment nor do you have facilities to launch any. I'll repeat my text from my post above:​

Earth orbit is getting somewhat crowded now with Elon Musk putting his massive Starlink constellation up. Something like 12,000 satellites . RORSATS etc., also are HVAs and would be targeted by the Chicoms and the Russians because normally they are large satellites and follow predictable orbits. However, modern technology has minaturised the sensors significantly so it is feasible that such satellites could possible be cube satellites and even hidden amongst the Starlink constellation, or be in LEO and easily and quickly replaced if or when knocked out of orbit. Australia certainly has the radar smarts for such an endeavour and along with the radar, IR and visual sensors would be required. There are a lot of spaceborne sensors used in the geosciences and earth sciences fields that could be utilised and / or modified for such activities to start with. Their resolution can be pretty good. In NZ we are quite capable of doing the same and we have the launch vehicle and 2 launch pads. Just no political will to go down that road.​

​

Other UAVs? You'll have to start a whole acquisition program up from the beginning and that takes time and that is something that you may not have a lot of.​

​

Has anybody bothered to understand why the USN is not acquiring P-8s and Tritons this budget round? Sometimes it is the simplest reason in that it just doesn't have the money because it wasn't given what was requested with funding lower than the previous budget. P-8 funding amongst others is being swiped to build a wall and the fund that Defence have been using to bolster acquisitions (the war fund) has been allocated less funding this round. I would suggest that Triton funding has gone that way since 2018, and the USN has decided to start cutting losses because it's really short of money to build ships, subs, aircraft and weapons.

Joint force is a really good concept and capability, however like pavlova and champagne, to much is not a good thing. It's not the be all to end all and each service still is responsible for and the specialist in its own domain. I strongly disagree with your assertion that the P-8 is "too domain-specific and ignores the point of a Joint Force by Design". How do you arrive at that? The P-8 is not just for hunting subs and enemy men of war. It also has significant ISR capabilities and other capabilities that are not in the public domain. It's ISR capabilities are no restricted to the maritime domain and work just as well over land. It isn't a one trick pony.

The RAAF will operate and do things with the P-8 that the USN will have wet dreams about. They will do the same thing with the software on it that they have done with the E-7 Wedgetail. On the Wedgetail capability upgrades are driven by the aircrew in the back, not by some office based software engineers and acquisitions specialists in Canberra. Also the upgrades are incremental and always happening. It took Boeing quite a bit to accept because theywere quite put out and grumpy at the start thinking that the RAAF were trying to cheat them out of money. However when they finally saw what was actually going on they were quite impressed. The same will happen with the P-8 and is undoubtedly happening now.

 

[Takao]

"P-8s don't do surveillance very well at all". Who told you that load of shit? Do you actually know anything about the P-8 at all?

How much do you know about ASW @Takao ? Subs aren't exactly the easist of things to find. Lets be clear about that from the start and that's why a lot of nations, including Australia, invest a lot of national treasure in them, especially in the Indo Pacific.

I know enough - including the ROE, mission types, data input and output, threats and the other 'stuff' that feeds in and out of the capability. I even know how many engines it has! I also work quite closely with some of our best and most senior ASW and sumbarine personnel and - critically for this discussion - understand the difference between reconnaissance and surveillance.

If you have a known datum point, then sic the P-8s onto it. Done. Sold. Once the MU90 is replaced by something that can kill. But for searching square kilometre of ocean upon square kilometre day in, day out, searching for that datum, than P-8 sucks. The endurance is poor, the ROE goes through the roof, crew hours hurt and you burn a lot of effort you need later.

So yes, I will stand by the comment that the P-8 doesn't do surveillance well. It's why JORN exists, it's why the USN throught Triton was needed and it's why automatically saying "more P-8s to replace Triton" is wrong.

If Triton is cancelled then another P-8 tranche acquisition has to be very seriously considered because there is no other platform capable of replacing the lost capability within the short to medium term.

P-8 =/= Triton.

And what is your definition of short to medium term? These projects aren't necessarily delivering a capability in the next 24 - 36 months. That's assuming they do what they claim and it doesn't take 12 - 24 months + to sort out issues.

Has anybody bothered to understand why the USN is not acquiring P-8s and Tritons this budget round? Sometimes it is the simplest reason in that it just doesn't have the money because it wasn't given what was requested with funding lower than the previous budget. P-8 funding amongst others is being swiped to build a wall and the fund that Defence have been using to bolster acquisitions (the war fund) has been allocated less funding this round. I would suggest that Triton funding has gone that way since 2018, and the USN has decided to start cutting losses because it's really short of money to build ships, subs, aircraft and weapons.

Yup - anyone who thinks this is a purely USN / USAF decisions is incorrect. Domestic politics has reared it's head in both. But, while that poses some risk to the ADF it also offers potential opportunities. And that is my point. It may be that the best way to spend money is buy some more P-8s. But that decision shouldn't be automatic and it shouldn't be made in the isolation of a single service.

Joint force is a really good concept and capability, however like pavlova and champagne, to much is not a good thing. It's not the be all to end all and each service still is responsible for and the specialist in its own domain. I strongly disagree with your assertion that the P-8 is "too domain-specific and ignores the point of a Joint Force by Design". How do you arrive at that? The P-8 is not just for hunting subs and enemy men of war. It also has significant ISR capabilities and other capabilities that are not in the public domain. It's ISR capabilities are no restricted to the maritime domain and work just as well over land. It isn't a one trick pony.

I've never said otherwise about the Joint Force. Of course each Group and Service are the experts in their domain. Does anyone think that you wouldn't consult CA about land operations? Or ASD for cybers? That is what the Joint Force by Design means - meshing those expertise into a single force that meets Government intent. Otherwise you get an imbalanced force like Aug 99 that can barely do it's job or stupid ideas like an Army MALE.

But in the combat operations we are heading towards, the P-8 is a one-trick pony. It'll be excellent at ASW (once given a datum), ok at ASuW strike (assuming LRASM works and the targeting problem is solved) and burning wreckage over land. Great, in Afghanistan it can do overland ISR - frankly woopdie do. That's such a waste of money. And if the threat becomes armed as well as the Houthi rebels then it no longer becomes survivable.

Again - P-8 =/= Triton. So if Triton is cancelled, that capability gap should go into the mix with all the other capability gaps. If it comes out on top - fine, fund it. If it doesn't - fund that which does. And when determining the possible solution to that risk, there other options in the short and medium terms. Yup - all that I listed as exemplars have possible risks like you mentioned. Again, into the mix they go.

 

[Stampede]

I'm no expert, or have access to inside knowledge, but I'd speculate the total number of 15 P8's was deemed appropriate for a reason, and that's with Triton as part of the package.
Now budgets for any bit of defence kit is a given and wouldn't it be nice to have a blank cheque to add numbers to all that's in inventory.
So if I remember correctly, we went from a wish list mix of 8 x P8 and 6 / 7 Tritons to an increase in P 8 numbers to a total of 12.
The latest is, we are to acquire another tranche of 3 to bring the P8's to a total of 15.
Not many defence acquisitions get that sort of percentage increase unless there is a reason.
Suggest as long as the P8 production line is still working, we will get those extra three for a total of 15; and if Triton has grief, then suggest even more will follow.
After all how many P 3's did the RAAF operate?
The P8 is a more modern aircraft for sure but sometimes it's just about numbers to do a job.

We want and need to do what the P8 offers.



Regards S

 

[John Fedup]

Before the Triton and P-8 era, a big fleet of P-3s had the job. Clearly the new solutions are much better so I wonder why they are being cut back as submarine proliferation along with hypersonic missiles are huge issues for the USN and other allied navies. I can't believe USN brass hats would not fight this decision. Certainly there are better things to cut even if the IOTUS's wall can't be cut. Perhaps this is not a budget decision but a technology decision. Triton is a surveillance tool that even several P-8s can't match but maybe it is now deemed too vulnerable. Does NG require resources to be diverted to the Raider or to a new more stealthy alternative to Triton? As for Australia, at least you have P-8s and a chance at Triton, Canada will have neither.

 

[toryu]

The RAAF will operate and do things with the P-8 that the USN will have wet dreams about. They will do the same thing with the software on it that they have done with the E-7 Wedgetail. On the Wedgetail capability upgrades are driven by the aircrew in the back, not by some office based software engineers and acquisitions specialists in Canberra. Also the upgrades are incremental and always happening. It took Boeing quite a bit to accept because theywere quite put out and grumpy at the start thinking that the RAAF were trying to cheat them out of money. However when they finally saw what was actually going on they were quite impressed. The same will happen with the P-8 and is undoubtedly happening now.

I think you might be pleasantly surprised at the level of on-the-fly low level software development that takes place directly by USN P-8 crews and the manner by which they efficiently push such knowledge out to the rest of the force. Been going on for a while now.

The Navy’s Kessel Run

Imagine you are a tactical coordinator (TACCO) on a P-8 Poseidon, the Navy’s newest antisubmarine warfare (ASW) aircraft. Your job is to maximize the tactical impact of your sensors and weapons while leading your crew. The United States is at war and you are tasked with finding and killing an...

blog.usni.org

 

[FoxtrotRomeo999]

Elon Musk has made a couple of recent comments at USAF centric meetings:

• Air Force Association Air Warfare conference in Orlando, Florida on 28 February 2020 ‘The fighter jet era has passed’: Elon Musk
• U.S. Air Force Space Pitch Day November 5 2019 Elon Musk discusses Starship at Air Force Space Pitch Day - SpaceNews.com (the Starship heading refers to a low cost orbital vehicle, not a "classical" Starship!).

His comments on the F-35 have been taken up by Channel Nine as Elon Musk: 'F-35 fighter jets would have no chance against drones'

Unmanned vehicles will be a serious consideration at some point in the future and by then Australia will have had significant experience with "Loyal Wingman" (RAAF), Triton (or similar, RAAF), and current and future UAVs in RAN and Army and should be then able to make an evolutionary transition. I don't believe any current UAVs have the capabilities of the F-35. It is one thing to have a vision but you don't bet your country on vapourware. Fortunately, Channel Nine does not run the RAAF.

 

[Redlands18]

Elon Musk has made a couple of recent comments at USAF centric meetings:

• Air Force Association Air Warfare conference in Orlando, Florida on 28 February 2020 ‘The fighter jet era has passed’: Elon Musk
• U.S. Air Force Space Pitch Day November 5 2019 Elon Musk discusses Starship at Air Force Space Pitch Day - SpaceNews.com (the Starship heading refers to a low cost orbital vehicle, not a "classical" Starship!).

His comments on the F-35 have been taken up by Channel Nine as Elon Musk: 'F-35 fighter jets would have no chance against drones'

Unmanned vehicles will be a serious consideration at some point in the future and by then Australia will have had significant experience with "Loyal Wingman" (RAAF), Triton (or similar, RAAF), and current and future UAVs in RAN and Army and should be then able to make an evolutionary transition. I don't believe any current UAVs have the capabilities of the F-35. It is one thing to have a vision but you don't bet your country on vapourware. Fortunately, Channel Nine does not run the RAAF.

Manned Fighters have been getting written off since the introduction of Surface Launched Missiles in the 1950s, for some strange reason they are still around, go figure

 

[hauritz]

The question of more P-8As, or not, could also be coloured by some news in the last few days regarding Triton:

RAAF Triton program at risk? – ADBR

And this:

US to ‘pause’ production of Australia’s Triton drones | The Strategist

The title of the latest issue of Australian Foreign Affairs asks, ‘Can we trust America?’ The case of the MQ-4C Triton unmanned aerial system would suggest the answer is no. The 2016 defence white paper ...

www.aspistrategist.org.au

Normally I don't pay too much attention to some media reports regarding defence matters, especially the general media, but when Andrew McLaughlin of ADBR and formerly of AA (Andrew has been an active member of DT in the past too, I won't say his DT 'user name', but those that know know) writes a piece, it's usually reasonably accurate.

The paragraph that caught my attention is:

As a consequence of the US budget uncertainty, Defence has reportedly been asked to submit three options to the Defence Investment Committee (IC) in early March on how to proceed on the program: to take the US Navy production slots; to delay the program by an estimated two years until US production ramps up; or to abandon the Triton program altogether. Regardless of which option is recommended by the IC, this will either require additional funding and/or approval by the National Security Committee of Cabinet.

The last of the three options is to abandon Triton (hopefully that doesn't happen), but if that option is in fact chosen, we may well see an order for additional P-8A placed sooner than later, and in fact I would imagine that the RAAF might have an argument to procure more than the three additional airframes provided for in the 2016 DWP, the order could in fact be larger to make up for the loss of the Triton capability.

Or we could see some additional P-8A and a potential increase in the MQ-9B Sky Guardian with the Sea Guardian option.

Anyway, it would appear that we may have some sort of announcement from Government sooner than later.

Cheers,

The APDR has a less pessimistic view and even sees this as an opportunity to bring forward the program for Australia by taking up the production slots originally held by the USN.

Triton Australia responds to USN MQ-4C Triton production freeze

Northrop Grumman Australia responds to USN MQ-4C Triton production freeze. Visit the Asia Pacific Defence Reporter to read more.

asiapacificdefencereporter.com

The article seems to indicate that the USN still considers the Triton a crucial asset and the production pause has more to do with allowing extra time to develop the IFC-4 system.

The Triton offers a unique set of capabilities and it is hard to see how that capability could be replaced. I couldn't even imagine how many extra manned aircraft you would need to replace the 24/7 patrol capability of the Triton.

 

[south]

The RAAF will operate and do things with the P-8 that the USN will have wet dreams about. They will do the same thing with the software on it that they have done with the E-7 Wedgetail. On the Wedgetail capability upgrades are driven by the aircrew in the back, not by some office based software engineers and acquisitions specialists in Canberra. Also the upgrades are incremental and always happening. It took Boeing quite a bit to accept because theywere quite put out and grumpy at the start thinking that the RAAF were trying to cheat them out of money. However when they finally saw what was actually going on they were quite impressed. The same will happen with the P-8 and is undoubtedly happening now.

Not sure that this is true. For starters the RAAF are the lead on E-7A, whereas USN are lead on P-8. I'd be highly surprised if the RAAF want to develop the software themselves and essentially end up with all of the dramas that come with doing that, when they can stay in tune with the USN / RAF

 

[ngatimozart]

Not sure that this is true. For starters the RAAF are the lead on E-7A, whereas USN are lead on P-8. I'd be highly surprised if the RAAF want to develop the software themselves and essentially end up with all of the dramas that come with doing that, when they can stay in tune with the USN / RAF

Who said anything about developing software and dramas? Read through carefully what I wrote and think about it. It's all about how you use it, how it's done and where the innovations is being done and lead from. The RAAF are not the RAN.

 

[south]

Who said anything about developing software and dramas? Read through carefully what I wrote and think about it. It's all about how you use it, how it's done and where the innovations is being done and lead from. The RAAF are not the RAN.

The second sentence of the original quote directly mentions software. Then you mentioned incremental upgrades / capability upgrades - to me that alluded to software (generally that is what delivers the upgrades in modern aircraft). If it is just innovative use/training then it’s debatable if it’s an “Upgrade”.

 

[John Fedup]

Manned Fighters have been getting written off since the introduction of Surface Launched Missiles in the 1950s, for some strange reason they are still around, go figure

A rebuttal to Elon Musk by a former USAF officer.

No, Elon Musk: The Era Of The Manned Fighter Jet Won’t Be Over Anytime Soon

It was bold but wrong for the Tesla and SpaceX CEO to proclaim the end of manned fighter aircraft in front of U.S. Air Force officers. Here's why manned fighters will hold the competitive edge over drones and remote-piloted aircraft for decades into the future.

www.forbes.com

 

[seaspear]

The R.A.A.F purchased some 70 anti radiation missiles for its "Growlers" should consideration be given for equiping its f35a,s as an aircraft that is stealthy would normally have that role of finding radars
ustralianaviation.com.au/2017/05/us-approves-sale-of-anti-radiation-missiles-for-raaf-growler/

US Air Force requests information on new anti-radiation missile for F-35A

The US Air Force (USAF) is requesting information for modifications to the US Navy's (USN) Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile-Extended Range (AARGM-ER) programme that would make that weapon suitable for its Lockheed Martin F-35A Lightning II stealth fighter.

www.flightglobal.com