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

[John Newman]

I notice the first two F-35s haven't been assigned to 2 OCU or 3 SDN. Last I heard the earlier F-35s required some modifications to bring them to the standard of the later versions. I wonder what will happen with them.

About two years ago when the RAAF received -003, -004 and -005, it was also reported that they had been delivered with Block 3F, and at the same time it was reported that the first two, -001 and -002, had begun the process of being upgraded to Block 3F standard from Block 3i.

To the best of my knowledge all RAAF F-35A are all now Bock 3F.

As to where -001 and -002 will end up, who knows? But they could end up with one of the three operational Sqns or with 2 OCU, but I wouldn't mind having a bet that they may end up being with the ARDU.

Aircraft Research and Development Unit RAAF - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

For many many years now at least one or two airframes (of various types), have spent their service life with the ARDU.

Two Mirage IIIs were assigned there, one of the F-111Cs spent most of its service life as part of the ARDU, and I believe there are two Classic Hornets assigned, one single seat and one dual seat.

If the RAAF continues to follow the past (the new PC-21 is now with ARDU), then it's a pretty good guess that one or two F-35A will also serve there too, -001 and -002 would probably be the obvious candidates.

Cheers,

 

[Takao]

About two years ago when the RAAF received -003, -004 and -005, it was also reported that they had been delivered with Block 3F, and at the same time it was reported that the first two, -001 and -002, had begun the process of being upgraded to Block 3F standard from Block 3i.

To the best of my knowledge all RAAF F-35A are all now Bock 3F.

As to where -001 and -002 will end up, who knows? But they could end up with one of the three operational Sqns or with 2 OCU, but I wouldn't mind having a bet that they may end up being with the ARDU.

Aircraft Research and Development Unit RAAF - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

For many many years now at least one or two airframes (of various types), have spent their service life with the ARDU.

Two Mirage IIIs were assigned there, one of the F-111Cs spent most of its service life as part of the ARDU, and I believe there are two Classic Hornets assigned, one single seat and one dual seat.

If the RAAF continues to follow the past (the new PC-21 is now with ARDU), then it's a pretty good guess that one or two F-35A will also serve there too, -001 and -002 would probably be the obvious candidates.

Cheers,

I'm not sure we could spare any F-35s for a permanent slot at ARDU - they are just too expensive. If -001 and/or -002 are not going to be upgraded to first line capability, I'd say something like A38-001 (the first of the Tigers) is more sensible - a permanently modified instrumented aircraft that flies in the training Squadron, will never go to the first line unit and will be grabbed for flight testing if/when required.

 

[Milne Bay]

I'm not sure we could spare any F-35s for a permanent slot at ARDU - they are just too expensive. If -001 and/or -002 are not going to be upgraded to first line capability, I'd say something like A38-001 (the first of the Tigers) is more sensible - a permanently modified instrumented aircraft that flies in the training Squadron, will never go to the first line unit and will be grabbed for flight testing if/when required.

Would there be any reason why -001 and/or -002 are not going to be upgraded to first line capability?
I can't for the life of me think of any.
Takao is right, these represent too big an investment to not be included in first line capability.
On a different topic, the F/A 18's have been very busy over our part of NSW for the last week.
Plenty of training hours being logged at the moment
MB

 

[John Newman]

I'm not sure we could spare any F-35s for a permanent slot at ARDU - they are just too expensive. If -001 and/or -002 are not going to be upgraded to first line capability, I'd say something like A38-001 (the first of the Tigers) is more sensible - a permanently modified instrumented aircraft that flies in the training Squadron, will never go to the first line unit and will be grabbed for flight testing if/when required.

Expensive? Define expensive?

Is expensive the cost of the particular airframe at the time of procurement, or is it expensive due to the number of airframes of that particular type?

My understanding is that two of the Classic Hornet fleet (originally 75 airframes, reduced to 71) have spent the majority of their service lives with the ARDU, A21-32 and A21-101, both 'expensive' at the time of procurement.

The new PC-21, I've seen reports that three of the 49 airframes have been allocated to the ARDU, four airframes to 4 Sqn and the 42 remainder for training.

Various other types are allocated from time to time too.

As for F-35A, I have no clear or definite knowledge as to how they will be used or allocated during their 30+ year service lifetimes, but if past history is anything to go on, then at least two airframes from the operational fighter fleet dedicated to ARDU duties is not an unreasonable guess.

Cheers,

 

[south]

Expensive? Define expensive?

Is expensive the cost of the particular airframe at the time of procurement, or is it expensive due to the number of airframes of that particular type?

My understanding is that two of the Classic Hornet fleet (originally 75 airframes, reduced to 71) have spent the majority of their service lives with the ARDU, A21-32 and A21-101, both 'expensive' at the time of procurement.

The new PC-21, I've seen reports that three of the 49 airframes have been allocated to the ARDU, four airframes to 4 Sqn and the 42 remainder for training.

Various other types are allocated from time to time too.

As for F-35A, I have no clear or definite knowledge as to how they will be used or allocated during their 30+ year service lifetimes, but if past history is anything to go on, then at least two airframes from the operational fighter fleet dedicated to ARDU duties is not an unreasonable guess.

Cheers,

they won’t go to ARDU, but it isn’t because they are too expensive an asset.

the Australian involvement with test F-35’s is based at Edwards AFB with the JOTT

 

[ngatimozart]

they won’t go to ARDU, but it isn’t because they are too expensive an asset.

the Australian involvement with test F-35’s is based at Edwards AFB with the JOTT

No one outside of the RAAF chain of command know at the moment and people can speculate until the sun goes nova, but the point is we don't have any evidence for such a statement apart from where 1 or 2 airframes are based at the moment. Just because they are there now doesn't mean that they will permanently be based there.

 

[John Newman]

they won’t go to ARDU, but it isn’t because they are too expensive an asset.

the Australian involvement with test F-35’s is based at Edwards AFB with the JOTT

As I said above, I have no clear or definite knowledge as to how they will be used or allocated during their 30+ year service lifetimes, but if past history is anything to go on, then at least two airframes from the operational fighter fleet dedicated to ARDU duties is not an unreasonable guess, that's just my opinion.

And yes I agree that currently RAAF airframes are involved in development and testing in the USA, no argument from me.

But, as I understand it, by the end of 2023 when the last of 72 F-35A for the RAAF is delivered, all 72 airframes will be located here in Australia, I haven't seen any reports suggesting that any of those 72 airframes will remain permanently in the US.

It is well known that, unlike previous combat fast jets which may have had one or two major upgrades during their service lives, it appears that the F-35 will be almost continuously upgraded, mostly software but also occasional hardware upgrades too.

It's my understanding that rather than a major upgrade every two years or so, the F-35 fleet is now going to have smaller regular updates every six months or so.

Keeping the F-35 Ahead of the Bad Guys | Air & Space Forces Magazine

Operational testing is still underway, but the F-35 is already beginning its first major upgrade.

www.airforcemag.com

The new update process is known as Continuous Capability Development and Delivery or C2D2. The plan to move from Block 3F to Block 4 is going to see updates every six months up until 2024.

But the development program doesn't stop there, Block 5 will be the next, and most likely over the next 30 years or so we will see more block upgrades beyond Block 5.

What that tells me is that the RAAF (and all F-35 users), will have manage those very regular upgrades to their operational fleets is a very well managed and methodical manner.

Which brings me back to my belief that one or two F-35A will spend their lives with the ARDU, to me that would be a very sound and logical approach to manage those very regular upgrades to the fleet, install, test and verify, then roll out to the fleet, and repeat, etc, etc.

Anyway, time will tell, and just my opinion of course too.

Cheers,

 

[south]

And yes I agree that currently RAAF airframes are involved in development and testing in the USA, no argument from me.

There are no RAAF airframes involved in test in the USA.

It is well known that, unlike previous combat fast jets which may have had one or two major upgrades during their service lives, it appears that the F-35 will be almost continuously upgraded, mostly software but also occasional hardware upgrades too.

This is not unique to F-35. Witness the continuous development of Typhoon, Superhornet, F-16 growth in capability, F-22 spiral upgrades etc...

 

[south]

Added links to support... Witness the continuous development of Typhoon, F-16 growth in capability, F-22 upgrade roadmap, Superhornet etc

 

[hairyman]

If the F35's of the RAAF are to be upgraded regularly, will they have to be taken to the US, or will the upgrades be capable of being done here in Australia?

 

[Boagrius]

In my quest to find out more about the future of Australian GBAD, I found this:

http://www.anzidlsoc.com.au/1600_AIR6500_Brief_to_TDL_Interoperability_Summit_2017.pdf

An interesting if slightly confusing read in that one of the opening quotes states “The government is concerned by the growing threat posed by ballistic and cruise missile capability and their proliferation in the Indo-Pacific and Middle East Regions” and then later indicates that the MR GBAD system to be acquired under AIR6500 Ph 2 will not be directed at ballistic missiles or C-RAM (slide 10). It describes a system occupying the 10-50nm range envelope directed primarily at LO/5th gen fighters (!?). I find this a little odd as most if not all modern western SAM systems that occupy this part of an IADS tend to feature some focus on ABM capability...

 

[vonnoobie]

Jumping back to the guess work on what if any F-35's will be stationed to ARDU IF we are assigning the F-35's in any fashion resembling how the classics had been then each squadron should be around 16 airframes leaving 8 attrition airframes based on the classic buy having 64 aircraft in use between No. 2, 3, 75 and 77 squadrons and 11 aircraft to replace expected losses. Anyway time will tell.

 

[OldTex]

In my quest to find out more about the future of Australian GBAD, I found this:

http://www.anzidlsoc.com.au/1600_AIR6500_Brief_to_TDL_Interoperability_Summit_2017.pdf

An interesting if slightly confusing read in that one of the opening quotes states “The government is concerned by the growing threat posed by ballistic and cruise missile capability and their proliferation in the Indo-Pacific and Middle East Regions” and then later indicates that the MR GBAD system to be acquired under AIR6500 Ph 2 will not be directed at ballistic missiles or C-RAM (slide 10). It describes a system occupying the 10-50nm range envelope directed primarily at LO/5th gen fighters (!?). I find this a little odd as most if not all modern western SAM systems that occupy this part of an IADS tend to feature some focus on ABM capability...

I think that trying to use a MR air defence missile system, with a maximum range of ~50nm, to intercept a ballistic missile (even SRBM or IRBM) would be extremely difficult. The difficulty arises from the latency in the sensor-shooter-intercept loop and is further complicated with the possible use of swarm attack tactics and decoy targets. AIR6500 Ph2 can be considered as bringing back the layer of air defence that used to be provided by the Bloodhound missiles (yes I am old enough to remember them in Australian service).

 

[Boagrius]

I think that trying to use a MR air defence missile system, with a maximum range of ~50nm, to intercept a ballistic missile (even SRBM or IRBM) would be extremely difficult. The difficulty arises from the latency in the sensor-shooter-intercept loop and is further complicated with the possible use of swarm attack tactics and decoy targets. AIR6500 Ph2 can be considered as bringing back the layer of air defence that used to be provided by the Bloodhound missiles (yes I am old enough to remember them in Australian service).

Yeah that's the impression I got. The confusing thing is that just about anything that falls in that range bracket would have an ABM capability. Even PAC3 with it's relatively modest range envelope is a HTK ABM missile. The exception to this might be procuring additional NASAMS batteries and fitting them out with something like AMRAAM-ER. Even so, that wouldn't have the legs to travel 50nm, and the guidance package would probably be sub-optimal for the intended LO 5th gen target set. There doesn't seem to be much out there that neatly fits the bill.

 

[OldTex]

Yeah that's the impression I got. The confusing thing is that just about anything that falls in that range bracket would have an ABM capability. Even PAC3 with it's relatively modest range envelope is a HTK ABM missile. The exception to this might be procuring additional NASAMS batteries and fitting them out with something like AMRAAM-ER. Even so, that wouldn't have the legs to travel 50nm, and the guidance package would probably be sub-optimal for the intended LO 5th gen target set. There doesn't seem to be much out there that neatly fits the bill.

I would suggest that the ABM capability of PAC3 ADS et al is either brochure capability or based on engaging SCUD SRBM type targets. To engage MRBMs and better would require not only systems like THAAD but also the sensors such as SBIRS or similar to identify the target in the launch stage for engagement in the cruise stage. This would allow for second shots if required.

 

[Boagrius]

I would suggest that the ABM capability of PAC3 ADS et al is either brochure capability or based on engaging SCUD SRBM type targets. To engage MRBMs and better would require not only systems like THAAD but also the sensors such as SBIRS or similar to identify the target in the launch stage for engagement in the cruise stage. This would allow for second shots if required.

Yes I believe PAC3 is a development of ERINT, and primarily provides a terminal point defence capability against SRBMs and TBMs. I guess time shall tell what sort of system we are looking for, but AFAIK the available options either don't have the desired range (AMRAAM-ER, PAC3, CAMM-ER) or comfortably exceed it, with a significant built-in ABM focus (PAC2, David's Sling/Skyceptor, ASTER-30 etc).

 

[Boagrius]

As an addendum it will be interesting to see if the US ends up using a Mk41 VLS based TEL on its GLCM revival. A TEL like that could house ESSM/SM2 for AIR6500 Ph2 and LRASM for SEA4100, creating some commonality benefits. It would also make it easy to turn an MR GBAD (ESSM/SM2) system into a LR/BMD one (SM3 & 6) if and when things went to custard down the track.

 

[ngatimozart]

As an addendum it will be interesting to see if the US ends up using a Mk41 VLS based TEL on its GLCM revival. A TEL like that could house ESSM/SM2 for AIR6500 Ph2 and LRASM for SEA4100, creating some commonality benefits. It would also make it easy to turn an MR GBAD (ESSM/SM2) system into a LR/BMD one (SM3 & 6) if and when things went to custard down the track.

I have been wondering about the suitability of a shorebound Mk-41 VLS and and the shore variant of the SPY-7 or CEAFAR equivalent and AEGIS software. It is a proven system and the only difference being is that it's not on the blue wobbly stuff.

 

[oldsig127]

I have been wondering about the suitability of a shorebound Mk-41 VLS and and the shore variant of the SPY-7 or CEAFAR equivalent and AEGIS software. It is a proven system and the only difference being is that it's not on the blue wobbly stuff.

Are you talking about something like AEGIS Ashore? It's certainly been discussed in respect to Australia before, including here in response to this article on DefConnect

Aegis ashore meanwhile provides a highly capable missile defence system – building on the successful integration to the Aegis combat system on US, Australian, Japanese and South Korean warships while incorporating 'shoot down' capabilities and interoperability with a range of 'sensor' and 'shooter' platforms including the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, E-7A Wedgetail, P-8A Poseidon, Hobart Class and Hunter Class and the recently announced $2 billion LAND 19 Phase 7B program.

Aegis ashore, NORFORCE and an integrated Aussie BMD and A2/AD network

With the increasing proliferation of advanced ballistic and cruise missile threats in the Indo-Pacific, the Australian mainland has never been more exposed - meanwhile the cost effectiveness of conte

www.defenceconnect.com.au

oldsig

 

[Boagrius]

I have been wondering about the suitability of a shorebound Mk-41 VLS and and the shore variant of the SPY-7 or CEAFAR equivalent and AEGIS software. It is a proven system and the only difference being is that it's not on the blue wobbly stuff.

I'm honestly surprised it hasn't been attempted yet. From the perspective of distributed lethality and building a sensor agnostic kill-web it's a no-brainer. OPFOR have no idea what range ring to draw around it because it could have anything from ESSM to SM6 (an ASM in its own right) to Tomahawk in it. Quite future proof too.