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

[Boagrius]

OT
If NGAD proves to be a significant advance then waiting might be an option. In Canada’s case I just hope junior doesn’t use this as an excuse to derail our fighter replacement. With an election looming possibly this fall I can’t see a fighter selection now that would become a hot-bottom issue. Afterwards, who knows.

Indeed. Admittedly I am still skeptical that the US will be able to turn NGAD into a working capability by early next decade as planned, but if they succeed then having to choose between that and a Block V F35A strikes me as a good problem to have.

 

[John Newman]

I suspect the question on a lot of people's minds is whether to go for another tranche of F35A or to wait and see what NGAD produces. If the US can deliver on its aspirations it could be a compelling jet, but still some water to pass under the bridge before that decision gets made.

I agree about NGAD, some recent media reports have suggested there will be two variants, including a long range variant.

The long range variant would obviously be of interest to the RAAF and especially if the range can be closer to F-111 range.

Some questions are in service when? How much? Will the US allow export to Australia? And so on.

Cheers,

 

[John Fedup]

Hopefully one thing the US has learned from its F-22 program is that exports can provide additional production that lowers the unit cost thus making decent acquisition numbers for their own Air Force. Like other Western economies, the US can’t direct much more money towards mega defence projects. The worst outcome for the NGAD fighter is 50-100 copies of each version resulting in a total roughly the same as the Raptor fleet.

 

[John Newman]

Hopefully one thing the US has learned from its F-22 program is that exports can provide additional production that lowers the unit cost thus making decent acquisition numbers for their own Air Force. Like other Western economies, the US can’t direct much more money towards mega defence projects. The worst outcome for the NGAD fighter is 50-100 copies of each version resulting in a total roughly the same as the Raptor fleet.

Mate, I agree, if the US was prepared to allow export of NGSD to allies, it would have a positive effect on unit cost.

Those allies would probably include Australia, Japan, South Korea, Singapore and Israel (I’d add Canada as a nation that could be given approval, but I doubt the required expenditure would ever be approved by a Canuck Government).

I wouldn’t add any Euro nations as there are currently two consortiums developing their own Next Gen combat aircraft.

Anyway, it all still comes down to ‘if’ the US was prepared to allow export of NGAD.

If export isn’t approved, and the RAAF wants a manned aircraft, I’d imagine the obvious fallback will be that 4th squadron of F-35A.

Time will tell.

Cheers,

 

[hairyman]

Surely if the Yanks knock us back we would have to consider the British Tempest or the European aircraft?

 

[Boagrius]

Surely if the Yanks knock us back we would have to consider the British Tempest or the European aircraft?

A definite consideration, I'm just not convinced they'll be ready to go this side of 2040. We shall see...

 

[Redlands18]

Surely if the Yanks knock us back we would have to consider the British Tempest or the European aircraft?

It will also be interesting to see if the Japanese try to push the F-3 for export but going on the Fighter programs of the last 30 years it would be hard to see anything available before the late 2030s.

 

[Gryphinator]

I imagine Carlo Kopp's c.2006 F-23 in RAAF colours would be good to go by 2030? ;-)

 

[Redlands18]

I imagine Carlo Kopp's c.2006 F-23 in RAAF colours would be good to go by 2030? ;-)

Or the F-111 Battlestar but never the F-35 Sopwith Camel

 

[John Newman]

Surely if the Yanks knock us back we would have to consider the British Tempest or the European aircraft?

I really struggle to see that happening, the last combat aircraft we procured from the UK was the Canberra, the last European combat aircraft was Mirage III.

And if we look at the history of ‘multi nation’ consortiums, they don’t usually have a good record.

Two Consortiums with three nations each, what could possibly go wrong? Lots!!!

They’ll fight, bicker and bitch, one or more nations will threaten to quit, they’ll never agree on a single configuration, and on it will go.

Projected production will fall and of course the unit price will skyrocket too.

For many reasons, good reasons, we’ll stick with US produced aircraft, that I’m pretty certain of.

Cheers,

 

[pkcasimir]

Hopefully one thing the US has learned from its F-22 program is that exports can provide additional production that lowers the unit cost thus making decent acquisition numbers for their own Air Force. Like other Western economies, the US can’t direct much more money towards mega defence projects. The worst outcome for the NGAD fighter is 50-100 copies of each version resulting in a total roughly the same as the Raptor fleet.

The lack of exports for the F-22 was not the reason for the high unit cost of the F-22. The US Air Force had planned on procuring 381 aircraft. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, in one of the biggest bonehead decisions of any US Secretary of Defense (and that's saying a lot), curtailed production of the F-22 to 189 planes, thus effectively doubling the unit cost. Gates justified his decision by saying that the F-22 would not be suitable for future wars the US would fight. In fact, both the the USAF Chief of Staff and the Secretary of the Air Force were fired by Gates because of their vigorous opposition to his decision over the F-22. General Norton Schwartz, the new Chief of Staff, decided not to fight a losing battle over the F-22 with Gates and exacted a promise to develop the B-21 in return.
The NGAD fighter maybe only 100 units, but only because of the new philosophy of the USAF on how to design and develop fighters, and not because of cost. In fact, the USAF is counting on the NGAD to be cost competitive with the any other fighter.

 

[John Fedup]

The lack of exports for the F-22 was not the reason for the high unit cost of the F-22. The US Air Force had planned on procuring 381 aircraft. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, in one of the biggest bonehead decisions of any US Secretary of Defense (and that's saying a lot), curtailed production of the F-22 to 189 planes, thus effectively doubling the unit cost. Gates justified his decision by saying that the F-22 would not be suitable for future wars the US would fight. In fact, both the the USAF Chief of Staff and the Secretary of the Air Force were fired by Gates because of their vigorous opposition to his decision over the F-22. General Norton Schwartz, the new Chief of Staff, decided not to fight a losing battle over the F-22 with Gates and exacted a promise to develop the B-21 in return.
The NGAD fighter maybe only 100 units, but only because of the new philosophy of the USAF on how to design and develop fighters, and not because of cost. In fact, the USAF is counting on the NGAD to be cost competitive with the any other fighter.

The Raptor price was a function of development R&D, infrastructure for production, and finally the cost for actual raw material/component and electronic systems. The unit cost based on the 381, I assume, was deemed too high. Both Australia and Japan expressed interest and perhaps others (Israel for example) possibly would have added another 120-200. The last production Raptor, excluding development costs, was $147 million. Like the F-35, as more are produced, subcontractors can offer better costs. What would the production costs have been if suppliers were guaranteed 550-600 (perhaps more)? I am guessing a price that might have been low enough to get the anti-Raptor faction in Congress to back off.

 

[Redlands18]

The Raptor price was a function of development R&D, infrastructure for production, and finally the cost for actual raw material/component and electronic systems. The unit cost based on the 381, I assume, was deemed too high. Both Australia and Japan expressed interest and perhaps others (Israel for example) possibly would have added another 120-200. The last production Raptor, excluding development costs, was $147 million. Like the F-35, as more are produced, subcontractors can offer better costs. What would the production costs have been if suppliers were guaranteed 550-600 (perhaps more)? I am guessing a price that might have been low enough to get the anti-Raptor faction in Congress to back off.

Australia showing interest is actually a myth created by people like Kopp and Goon who have never liked the F-35. At that time the first priority was the replacement of the F-111 and the F-22A was certainly no F-111 replacement. There was some talk about developing a FB-22 and Australia being a potential customer but i suspect any such development would have been priced out of Australia’s range anyway.

There has been a lot of talk about how Australia requested the F-22 and was knocked back or Australia should be buying the F-22 over the years, but none of that ever come from the Government or RAAF, its a bit like the Virginia class Subs in recent years, plenty of “Experts” saying we should buy them or have requested them and been knocked back.

 

[Boagrius]

One of the many peculiarities of APA's view - the F35's range was "too short" for long range strike - so better go with the F22, a jet that offered even less range and a far more limited air to ground capability. I suppose they also would have pointed to their proposed uber-F111 here, but that would still have needed escort (presumably by the Raptors) anywhere it went - same problem as the original Pig.

As for the FB-22 - I've found it's often a red flag when self proclaimed experts slander an existing design because their favourite vapourware one "outperforms" it.

 

[John Fedup]

Australia showing interest is actually a myth created by people like Kopp and Goon who have never liked the F-35. At that time the first priority was the replacement of the F-111 and the F-22A was certainly no F-111 replacement. There was some talk about developing a FB-22 and Australia being a potential customer but i suspect any such development would have been priced out of Australia’s range anyway.

There has been a lot of talk about how Australia requested the F-22 and was knocked back or Australia should be buying the F-22 over the years, but none of that ever come from the Government or RAAF, its a bit like the Virginia class Subs in recent years, plenty of “Experts” saying we should buy them or have requested them and been knocked back.

Point taken but Japan and Israel probably would have been potentially another 75-125 jets. Whether that number along with maybe another player might have been enough. The Raptor could have countered left wing opposition in Canada who see the F-35 as an offensive sneaky bomb truck whereas the Raptor has great range for reaching the Arctic, has two engines and it’s primary mission is killing enemy jets. Having extra Raptors for NORAD would have been a given as Canada is very unlikely to commit any fast jets overseas given our electorate. Fair to say 20-30 Raptors would have been all Canada could afford unless the US considered subsidizing a larger number as enhancing US defence.

 

[Redlands18]

Point taken but Japan and Israel probably would have been potentially another 75-125 jets. Whether that number along with maybe another player might have been enough. The Raptor could have countered left wing opposition in Canada who see the F-35 as an offensive sneaky bomb truck whereas the Raptor has great range for reaching the Arctic, has two engines and it’s primary mission is killing enemy jets. Having extra Raptors for NORAD would have been a given as Canada is very unlikely to commit any fast jets overseas given our electorate. Fair to say 20-30 Raptors would have been all Canada could afford unless the US considered subsidizing a larger number as enhancing US defence.

The lack of a genuine F-15A/C replacement probably caught the likes of Japan and Israel out.

 

[hauritz]

I see mixed signals when it comes to replacing the Rhino's and Growlers. In the case of the Growler the last Defence Budget provides funding for replacing the Growler lost a couple of years back while at the same time the 2020 Defence Update plan seemed to be calling for an early replacement of the entire EA-18G fleet.

The 2020 Defence update refers to "Additional Air Combat Capability" for the second half of the 2020s without ever going into any detail as to what that actually entails.

Other related programs such as research into High Speed Long-Range strike could very much influence what ever decisions are made about what sort of aircraft will be required to replace the SuperHornets. Perhaps a simple bomb truck with more range and better payload might be more relevant to Australia than additional F-35s..

U.S. Air Force F-15EXs Flying From Okinawa Could Fire Hypersonic Missiles At Targets 2,000 Miles Away

We don’t know yet where the U. S. Air Force plans to base its new F-15EX fighters. But if it deploys them to Japan and arms them with the new AGM-183 missile, the F-15s could be the most powerful strike aircraft in the Asia-Pacific region—and a threat to any Chinese attempt to invade Taiwan.

www.forbes.com

There are a number of research programs being conducted over the coming years that may, or may not pan out. As I see it there are still many complex decisions that will need to be made over the next decade.

 

[hairyman]

The idea of the P9 being fitted with additional points to carry additional bomb load, has that been advanced at all?

 

[Boagrius]

I think you must be referring to the P8A there? Last I heard it had been cleared to carry LRASM, but that's about it. Could be a very serious anti-shipping platform if stacked to the gills with LRASMs...

 

[John Newman]

I see mixed signals when it comes to replacing the Rhino's and Growlers. In the case of the Growler the last Defence Budget provides funding for replacing the Growler lost a couple of years back while at the same time the 2020 Defence Update plan seemed to be calling for an early replacement of the entire EA-18G fleet.

The 2020 Defence update refers to "Additional Air Combat Capability" for the second half of the 2020s without ever going into any detail as to what that actually entails.

Other related programs such as research into High Speed Long-Range strike could very much influence what ever decisions are made about what sort of aircraft will be required to replace the SuperHornets. Perhaps a simple bomb truck with more range and better payload might be more relevant to Australia than additional F-35s..

U.S. Air Force F-15EXs Flying From Okinawa Could Fire Hypersonic Missiles At Targets 2,000 Miles Away

We don’t know yet where the U. S. Air Force plans to base its new F-15EX fighters. But if it deploys them to Japan and arms them with the new AGM-183 missile, the F-15s could be the most powerful strike aircraft in the Asia-Pacific region—and a threat to any Chinese attempt to invade Taiwan.

www.forbes.com

There are a number of research programs being conducted over the coming years that may, or may not pan out. As I see it there are still many complex decisions that will need to be made over the next decade.

No mixed signals, not at all.

What you need to do is go back a decade or so and have a read of all previous DWP (2009, 2013 and 2016, all available on line), you also need to have a read of their accompanying DCP or DIIP and yearly updates of the DCP (all the same thing, different name).

In the 2020 DSU and accompanying FSP there is the budgeted project, with timeline, called ‘Additional Air Combat Capability’, in previous documents it was the ‘4th Squadron’ etc, which specifically referred to F-35A.

Basically what you have is the same project, similar time line and budget amount, what has changed over the last decade or so is that the project has ‘evolved’, instead of having a narrow focus, it has a much broader focus on what ‘might or might not’ replace the Super Hornets.

If you are going to set a plan for the next ten years you need to have budgeted projects, some may change, some may not, but you need a line entry in the plan so it can be taken into account for funding purposes at the very least.

As to the ‘EA-18G Growler Replacement’ you need to look at the ‘timeline’ of the project, it’s starts just prior to 2030, but also runs past 2040, just because a project appears to start early doesn’t mean that the capability is changed at the beginning of the timeline, there will be lots of studies and investigations well ‘before’ the actual replacement happens.

It’s always worth doing a bit of research, go back in time and you’ll usually find the answer.

Cheers,