t68
Well-Known Member
Going to be interesting when the new Nancy Bird Walton airport opens, wonder how that will affect training options. Use to see the herky birds doing touch and goes fairly often
Royal Australian Air Force [RAAF] News, Discussions and Updates
Going to be interesting when the new Nancy Bird Walton airport opens, wonder how that will affect training options. Use to see the herky birds doing touch and goes fairly often
I see that the "Septics" have reduced the number of F35's on order, and placed an order for the latest version of the F15. Maybe we should consider the F15 instead of a 4th squadron of F35's. I realize they are dearer, but we should try and get the best, not the cheapest.
Boagrius
Well-Known Member
AFAIK there has been no reduction in orders for the F35 in the US (merely scuttlebutt about it) and it is the far superior aircraft of the two by any meaningful metric, and certainly for our purposes. The Eagle would find itself entirely unable to survive a modern IADS going forward, and struggle to find relevance in a theatre populated by J20s. If we wanted more 4.5 gen aircraft we already have the Rhino fleet to expand upon, but even they seem destined to be relegated to a secondary role vis a vis the F35 as time goes on (ditto for the F15EX in US service).
IMO it's just not sensible or future proof to go backwards to a 4+ gen aircraft at this point, with a fleet as small as ours. If we want the longer reach (the main selling point of the Eagle), we will already get that in spades from the F35 fleet, and this will only grow as LRASM comes online in the Rhinos, along with JSM and then AGM-158 derivatives on the F35. An even better option might be to snap up some more KC-30A's so that we can send the more capable jets even further, but that would take more $$.
IMO it's just not sensible or future proof to go backwards to a 4+ gen aircraft at this point, with a fleet as small as ours. If we want the longer reach (the main selling point of the Eagle), we will already get that in spades from the F35 fleet, and this will only grow as LRASM comes online in the Rhinos, along with JSM and then AGM-158 derivatives on the F35. An even better option might be to snap up some more KC-30A's so that we can send the more capable jets even further, but that would take more $$.
Why would we further diversify our air combat fleet with all the resulting fragmented training and sustainment issues?
The RAAF has a very modest but modern ORBAT, we don’t have the political/financial support to be anything but that.
The USAF is in a different league (stating the obvious) they already have a variety of platforms that can be used for different circumstances eg once combat is joined then heavy hitting may take precedence over LO so there’s advantage by having different capabilities.
F35 has been selected by a number of small airforces because they represent the most comprehensive capability.
I don't disagree that additional KC-30A's would of been a good fit, but was surprised the two additional Tanker / Transports were deleted at the last review.
Our current fleet of seven is good, but nine would of being much better particularly as the F35 does not utilize drop tanks and it's often forgotten that it's not just the fighters that need tanking support.
Big distances over and around this not so little island.
Regards S
With SH and F-35 I think we are well covered.
With the US, well, the production line is open, they already operate that aircraft type, they have thousands of aircraft anyway, other uses have already paid for the upgrades. Having the US operate a small number ~200, later build F-15's is probably more about supporting the F-15 for export and within the USAF than them worried about the F-35. Much like the Superhornet for the USN, its useful to have a durable simple proven platform operational while you are migrating to the latest and greatest.
Also in a conflict scenario, it can be very useful to keep a production line of a type open. The F-35 production is very advanced, but is hugely difficult to increase the speed of production above a certain level. There are various bottlenecks in its production. Having lines like the SH or the F-15 and F-16 still operational are very useful.
IMO for an operator like Australia the F-15 doesn't really offer much over what we already have with the SH. Its our cheap, 4.5g blocky bomb truck. If we ever needed a plane off another production run in a hurry, it offers that as well (although not sure how much longer - but there is a larger pool of aircraft and spares available - Which is largely the biggest criticism of the F-35 currently, spares)
With the US, well, the production line is open, they already operate that aircraft type, they have thousands of aircraft anyway, other uses have already paid for the upgrades. Having the US operate a small number ~200, later build F-15's is probably more about supporting the F-15 for export and within the USAF than them worried about the F-35. Much like the Superhornet for the USN, its useful to have a durable simple proven platform operational while you are migrating to the latest and greatest.
Also in a conflict scenario, it can be very useful to keep a production line of a type open. The F-35 production is very advanced, but is hugely difficult to increase the speed of production above a certain level. There are various bottlenecks in its production. Having lines like the SH or the F-15 and F-16 still operational are very useful.
IMO for an operator like Australia the F-15 doesn't really offer much over what we already have with the SH. Its our cheap, 4.5g blocky bomb truck. If we ever needed a plane off another production run in a hurry, it offers that as well (although not sure how much longer - but there is a larger pool of aircraft and spares available - Which is largely the biggest criticism of the F-35 currently, spares)
P8's and wedgetails will also likely require significant support doing high tempo operations. We now have a large fleet of those aircraft 12 + 6. In a situation where those aircraft are operating at range (as they would) at high tempo, that would be a significant drain on our existing tanking fleet.
Boagrius
Well-Known Member
Yep, all else being equal range is good; more is better. Pretty sure that EFTs are a distinct possibility in the F35's future, it's just not clear to me when they'll appear. Using a Rator-esque system that jettisoned the pylon along with the tank, the stat floating around is a 40% range bump, with the jet returning to a stealthy state after the bags (and pylons) are gone.
Lockheed Looking at Extending the F-35’s Range, Weapons Suite | Air & Space Forces Magazine
Lockheed Martin is looking at dramatically increasing the range of the F-35 by adding external fuel tanks while also planning to expand the suite of weapons the aircraft can carry.
www.airforcemag.com
This is potentially significant in that planned variable bypass engine replacement is also slated to provide a significant range boost to the jet. Doing this all under VLO also helps tremendously, since an F15EX flight that encountered a PLAN SAG en route to its target would be faced with an immediate no-fly-zone in front of it with a diameter measured in hundreds of kilometres. Not so for an F35 flight that could proceed on a much more direct route without issue...
Boagrius
Well-Known Member
For those interested, I decided to do some back-of-napkin maths on the range improvement that might be achieved if the claimed enhancements from variable bypass engines and EFTs come to pass post~2030:
The claimed improvement for variable bypass engines is 35%, and 40% for 600gal EFTs. Added together that roughly takes the combat radius of the F35A (currently ~760nm without AAR for a typical interdiction mission) out to north of ~1300nm. Not going to hang my hat on the figure yet for obvious reasons, but internally carried JSM gives another ~300nm of reach, while JASSM-ER and XR would go much further still. Again, this is with no aerial refueling involved, so the growth potential baked into the jet seems promising at this point.
The claimed improvement for variable bypass engines is 35%, and 40% for 600gal EFTs. Added together that roughly takes the combat radius of the F35A (currently ~760nm without AAR for a typical interdiction mission) out to north of ~1300nm. Not going to hang my hat on the figure yet for obvious reasons, but internally carried JSM gives another ~300nm of reach, while JASSM-ER and XR would go much further still. Again, this is with no aerial refueling involved, so the growth potential baked into the jet seems promising at this point.
Takao
The Bunker Group
2 points I'd note - with some circumspection....
1. There is no project for a fourth JSF Sqn. There is a project for additional long-range strike that may be answered by a 4th Sqn (and is a common view), but without going into details it could also be answered by a...say, Tomahawk.
2. There was significant wargamming and analysis with the FSP, especially with respect to the KC-30s. As the final result shows, there are other aspects that improve effects on Red Force that are better value than the extra tankers. It was a ....contriversial, decision shall we say. But it was solid enough to make commitments on.
1. There is no project for a fourth JSF Sqn. There is a project for additional long-range strike that may be answered by a 4th Sqn (and is a common view), but without going into details it could also be answered by a...say, Tomahawk.
2. There was significant wargamming and analysis with the FSP, especially with respect to the KC-30s. As the final result shows, there are other aspects that improve effects on Red Force that are better value than the extra tankers. It was a ....contriversial, decision shall we say. But it was solid enough to make commitments on.
Answered by others, but no they haven’t. They are replacing F-15C/D’s, with F-15EX’s.
If we want the best, then F-35A will be a shoe in, but it’s not certain a 4th F-35A squadron will even be acquired, yet...
I’d assume ground-launched Tomahawk or we’ll be running a very thin strike capability based on the number of missiles our naval ships could actually carry...
cdxbow
Well-Known Member
Any hints what 'those other aspects' are?
Correct those eighteen Aircraft will need Tanking support as will the combinedtotal of twenty of C 17 / C130 J transports which even with long legs still need a " Top up ".
Out of curiosity does the RAAF variant of the C-27J Spartan have a refueling capability.
I do not see the refueling receptacle on the RAAF units as can be found on those of other those of other nations
Regards S
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
@ADMk2 has addressed your post and there is no announcement on a reduction of F-35 numbers, there is some speculation but nothing definite.
Gryphinator
Active Member
It's never going to happen but I was hoping for SLCM (sub version of LRASM?) off the Attacks rather than ground based. A bit more of a strategic deterrent IMO.
Last edited by a moderator:
That video reinforces everything that informed commentators on this forum have been saying for a long time.
It should also be compulsory reading for ignoramuses such as the “Australian’s” Ben Packham Robert Gottliebsen and the Goon Show.
Last edited:
The JSF program of record for USAF aircraft deliveries, has not changed by one single aircraft. It remains at 1763.
Confirmed, on video, not a second hand reported version, by the Chief of Staff of the USAF in person, if that is authoritative enough for you?
Boagrius
Well-Known Member
Yep, and given that @hairyman's concerns have long centred on long-range strike, I thought this was relevant:
Lockheed Martin Progressing Towards LRASM Integration on F-35 - Naval News
During the Surface Navy Association (SNA) 2021 Virtual Symposium held last week, Lockheed Martin was showcasing new artist impression showing two LRASM fitted on a F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.
www.navalnews.com
Last edited: