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

[ADMk2]

I honestly dont see how the P-8s could operate in a high intensity theatre. Obviously the cost in prohibitive. But the times have changed.

Did you have a close read of the JASSM-ER missile notification recently? The devil is in the detail…

Australia – Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missiles - Extended Range (JASSM ER) | Defense Security Cooperation Agency

www.dsca.mil

The AGM-158B2 JASSM-ER missile is the new designation for what was previously called “JASSM-XR”.

This missile is designed for a strike range of 1000nm. That is how a P-8A survives strike operations…

Australia is approved to acquire these weapons, as they are “cut in” to production of the existing JASSM-ER program, under Lot 19 acquisitions of that program.

 

[seaspear]

Were not a super power but involved in acquiring nuclear submarines
Nuclear submarines: Australia’s price tag for US-built boats could soar by billions (afr.com)
Which ever course of acquisitions would seem prohibitively expensive but China seems to have committed to its own long range stealth bomber
H-20: What we know about China's stealth bomber - Sandboxx

 

[seaspear]

Did you have a close read of the JASSM-ER missile notification recently? The devil is in the detail…

Australia – Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missiles - Extended Range (JASSM ER) | Defense Security Cooperation Agency

www.dsca.mil

The AGM-158B2 JASSM-ER missile is the new designation for what was previously called “JASSM-XR”.

This missile is designed for a strike range of 1000nm. That is how a P-8A survives strike operations…

Australia is approved to acquire these weapons, as they are “cut in” to production of the existing JASSM-ER program, under Lot 19 acquisitions of that program.

Im slightly confused at the missile you referred to the E.R or X.R
B-2 stealth bomber successfully launches long-range cruise missile | News | Flight Global

 

[ADMk2]

Im slightly confused at the missile you referred to the E.R or X.R
B-2 stealth bomber successfully launches long-range cruise missile | News | Flight Global

JASSM-ER is designated AGM-158B. Range roughly 500nm.

What has until recently been called JASSM-XR (and sometimes AGM-158D) has been re-designated as AGM-158B-2 - JASSM-ER. Range roughly 1000nm.

Both versions of the weapon are listed in that announcement. The difference primarily (apart from range) seems to be “when” you purchase the weapons.

The reason is that AGM-158B-2 (JASSM-XR) will be cut into production of the AGM-158B (JASSM-ER) under Lot 19 USAF and foreign military sales purchases.

They are more or less the same weapon, except the newer version features upgraded hardware and software and features double the range. Precisely how this has been achieved, I have not yet seen significant detail on.

But it’s a significant boost in long range strike capability that is for sure and it appears we have been approved to acquire it.

 

[oldsig127]

Would the potential purchase of an aircraft and its abilities like the B-21 address some of the issues faced with the delay in acquiring submarines and their abilities ?I don't suggest a long range stealth bomber can do everything a nuclear submarine can

Why would we imagine buying a paper aircraft - which it IS until the US gets the first ones complete, tested and in production - will get us enough aircraft to have a squadron even in IOC in time to fill any gaps before the 2030s? Bear in mind the USAF want 200 odd and would probably want a decent percentage of those before trickling the odd one to us. More likely to put a target on our back at an eye watering cost to treasury AND the other things we'd delay or give up.

oldsig

 

[John Newman]

Just to add to the -ER and -XR debate.

My understanding, from what I’ve read previously, the -XR is a significantly larger missile (the previous A, B and C versions all shared the same overall dimensions and weight).

From what I’ve read, -XR is 6.3m long, -ER is 4.2m long.

Also, -XR is 5,000lbs, -ER is a 2,000lbs (or slightly heavier) weapon.

That significant increase in size/weight appears to be ok for USAF B-52, B-1, B-2 and future B-21.

But what about F/A-18F and F-35A? A 5,000lb weapon loaded on a wing pylon?

Hmmm...??

 

[ADMk2]

Just to add to the -ER and -XR debate.

My understanding, from what I’ve read previously, the -XR is a significantly larger missile (the previous A, B and C versions all shared the same overall dimensions and weight).

From what I’ve read, -XR is 6.3m long, -ER is 4.2m long.

Also, -XR is 5,000lbs, -ER is a 2,000lbs (or slightly heavier) weapon.

That significant increase in size/weight appears to be ok for USAF B-52, B-1, B-2 and future B-21.

But what about F/A-18F and F-35A? A 5,000lb weapon loaded on a wing pylon?

Hmmm...??

I think that info is out of date. Some writers seem to be confusing the JASSM-XR which was a (proposed) stretched version of the original JASSM missile body (the 6.3m / 5000lbs missile you mentioned) aimed at the AGM-86 ALCM replacement requirement. I think that version has been abandoned with USAF going in a different direction for that requirement.

The AGM-158B2 appears to be the same “classic” JASSM missile body (4.2m / 2000lbs) with the new wing design, which is why we have been approved for it, as whichever aircraft we integrate the JASSM onto, should have the SWaP for this as well.

 

[John Fedup]

Why would we imagine buying a paper aircraft - which it IS until the US gets the first ones complete, tested and in production - will get us enough aircraft to have a squadron even in IOC in time to fill any gaps before the 2030s? Bear in mind the USAF want 200 odd and would probably want a decent percentage of those before trickling the odd one to us. More likely to put a target on our back at an eye watering cost to treasury AND the other things we'd delay or give up.

oldsig

The USAF wanted 800 Raptors then 400 and eventually got ~190 plus. Maybe the US learned their lesson and 200 B-21s will happen.

 

[John Newman]

I think that info is out of date. Some writers seem to be confusing the JASSM-XR which was a (proposed) stretched version of the original JASSM missile body (the 6.3m / 5000lbs missile you mentioned) aimed at the AGM-86 ALCM replacement requirement. I think that version has been abandoned with USAF going in a different direction for that requirement.

The AGM-158B2 appears to be the same “classic” JASSM missile body (4.2m / 2000lbs) with the new wing design, which is why we have been approved for it, as whichever aircraft we integrate the JASSM onto, should have the SWaP for this as well.

Yes I have read the various conflicting reports of what an ‘-XR’ actually is too.

If they can put -XR capabilities inside the same body of an -ER that would certainly be good for the RAAF.

 

[Redlands18]

The USAF wanted 800 Raptors then 400 and eventually got ~190 plus. Maybe the US learned their lesson and 200 B-21s will happen.

They also wanted 132 B-2s and ended up with 21

 

[seaspear]

Is the proposed missile a thousand nautical miles or kilometres?
Australia approved to buy JASSM-ER | ADBR
US approves JASSM ER sale to Australia - Australian Defence Magazine
Australia to buy Naval Strike Missile & fast-track JASSM-ER buy | ADBR
Certainly the agm-158c in this article seems more effective?
Australia to buy Naval Strike Missile & fast-track JASSM-ER buy | ADBR

 

[Stampede]

Did you have a close read of the JASSM-ER missile notification recently? The devil is in the detail…

Australia – Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missiles - Extended Range (JASSM ER) | Defense Security Cooperation Agency

www.dsca.mil

The AGM-158B2 JASSM-ER missile is the new designation for what was previously called “JASSM-XR”.

This missile is designed for a strike range of 1000nm. That is how a P-8A survives strike operations…

Australia is approved to acquire these weapons, as they are “cut in” to production of the existing JASSM-ER program, under Lot 19 acquisitions of that program.

SNAP

The Archer or the arrows.
The P-8 starts to look more like a bomb truck ( Archer ) when it is able to cover fast distances in a relatively safe zone to expend long ranged missiles covering the high intensity zone to a broad spectrum of targets ( Arrows )

Should the above and other missile upgrades eventuate and be integrated on the P-8 then we have all of S/E Asia and the Pacific Islands covered.


Cheers S

 

[StingrayOZ]

This missile is designed for a strike range of 1000nm. That is how a P-8A survives strike operations…

Imo for Australia I think that will be a more realistic long range strike platform than the B21.

Remembering B21 is subsonic, won't have an antishipping focus for the USAF, won't have a radar, won't be "multirole". Against a peer like China who will have AEW, long range ground based radar at various frequencies, networked forces, highly capable data linked antiair missiles, I'm not sure "Stealth Bombers" are the future for that space. Its not a replacement for the F-111. Focus for integration will be nuclear weapons, gravity bombs, glide bombs, not missiles like LRASM. Not unless you have degraded their capability first. The US can do that (to some nations, I think they would struggle against China, but US has mega capabilities).

But Australia won't be knocking out China's mainland defense facilities, and if not China, then we are causing issues with our region on why we would want this kind of bomber.

The P8 is also a useful platform (ASW, ASuW, search and rescue) and is the US maritime strike air platform. It also is low to operate on showing the flag or freedom navigation flights. For Australia we could give any hostile remote isolated forward operating base a bloody nose with P8 long range strike. Its credible.

I don't think the B21 will be low cost anything. I'm not sure how survivable it would be into the 2030s against the kind of peers we would want it capable of.

A potential hick-up is P8 integration with AGM-158B2.. this USN plane can't fire USAF weapons.. Again, even though it would be really handy to do so (but might hurt b21 if it could). Might be worth pushing the US on this integration perhaps with the UK, India, SK, etc. I know JASSM-ER and LRASM are highly similar, but that isn't the same as being a proven firing platform and fully integrated.

 

[ADMk2]

Is the proposed missile a thousand nautical miles or kilometres?
Australia approved to buy JASSM-ER | ADBR
US approves JASSM ER sale to Australia - Australian Defence Magazine
Australia to buy Naval Strike Missile & fast-track JASSM-ER buy | ADBR
Certainly the agm-158c in this article seems more effective?
Australia to buy Naval Strike Missile & fast-track JASSM-ER buy | ADBR

Read my earlier comments. It isn’t “a” missile proposed for RAAF, there are actually 2 separate missiles approved in the DSCA notification.

One has a range of 500nm (900+ k). One has a range of 1000nm (1850 + k).

 

[seaspear]

Your comment "Australia is approved to acquire these weapons, as they are “cut in” to production of the existing JASSM-ER program, under Lot 19 acquisitions of that program. " was confusing on this ,can you provide the link on the JASSM-XR to Australia please and which platform would be set to field it

 

[Stampede]

Your comment "Australia is approved to acquire these weapons, as they are “cut in” to production of the existing JASSM-ER program, under Lot 19 acquisitions of that program. " was confusing on this ,can you provide the link on the JASSM-XR to Australia please and which platform would be set to field it

The "extended family" of JASSM can be confusing

My understanding is the JASSM and the JASSM ER share a common shape and size with the later having a more efficient engine to provide extra range. The later is also the base for the naval LRASM, which may also gain additional range if sacrificing warhead size and wight for additional fuel.
I think this concept is yet to be approved for development.
I understand the JASSM XR is in a bigger class altogether.

If others could clarify the above I'd appreciate the response.



Cheers S

 

[old faithful]

One issue about hanging 1000km range cruise missiles off a P8, is that in war time every 737 becomes a target.

 

[John Fedup]

One issue about hanging 1000km range cruise missiles off a P8, is that in war time every 737 becomes a target.

Wouldn’t that be likely anyway along with everything else in the air?

 

[ADMk2]

Imo for Australia I think that will be a more realistic long range strike platform than the B21.

Remembering B21 is subsonic, won't have an antishipping focus for the USAF, won't have a radar, won't be "multirole". Against a peer like China who will have AEW, long range ground based radar at various frequencies, networked forces, highly capable data linked antiair missiles, I'm not sure "Stealth Bombers" are the future for that space. Its not a replacement for the F-111. Focus for integration will be nuclear weapons, gravity bombs, glide bombs, not missiles like LRASM. Not unless you have degraded their capability first. The US can do that (to some nations, I think they would struggle against China, but US has mega capabilities).

But Australia won't be knocking out China's mainland defense facilities, and if not China, then we are causing issues with our region on why we would want this kind of bomber.

The P8 is also a useful platform (ASW, ASuW, search and rescue) and is the US maritime strike air platform. It also is low to operate on showing the flag or freedom navigation flights. For Australia we could give any hostile remote isolated forward operating base a bloody nose with P8 long range strike. Its credible.

I don't think the B21 will be low cost anything. I'm not sure how survivable it would be into the 2030s against the kind of peers we would want it capable of.

A potential hick-up is P8 integration with AGM-158B2.. this USN plane can't fire USAF weapons.. Again, even though it would be really handy to do so (but might hurt b21 if it could). Might be worth pushing the US on this integration perhaps with the UK, India, SK, etc. I know JASSM-ER and LRASM are highly similar, but that isn't the same as being a proven firing platform and fully integrated.

The first aircraft B-21A is replacing in the USAF is the B-1B, which very much does have an anti-shipping focus, being the first aircraft to have LRASM integrated... Super Hornet was next and P-8A doesn’t have it… I think it’s a long bow to draw to say B-21A will replace B-1B as a priority, but won’t replace it’s roles…

https://www.navair.navy.mil/node/25561

Why would the B-21A not have a radar? B-52, B-1B and B-2A all do? B-2A is halfway through it’s radar modernisation project, adding AESA arrays to the aircraft...

Flight Tests Commence of New Radar Arrays For B-2A Stealth Bomber - Defense Daily

By Michael Sirak The Air Force and its industry partners have begun flights with a test version of the new radar arrays under development for the B-2A

www.defensedaily.com

If conventional, nuclear, precision strike, stand-off precision strike, anti-shipping strike and ISR missions doesn’t represent “multirole” then I guess it’s not multi-role.

The problem with P-8A being your striker are manifest, hence why no-one is using it in such a role. It’s slow, un-maneuverable, not LO in any sense of the word, has a relatively low payload for such a large aircraft, has zero chance of penetrating any kind of air defence and at least to me, is far more useful in it’s actual role.

 

[ADMk2]

Why would we imagine buying a paper aircraft - which it IS until the US gets the first ones complete, tested and in production - will get us enough aircraft to have a squadron even in IOC in time to fill any gaps before the 2030s? Bear in mind the USAF want 200 odd and would probably want a decent percentage of those before trickling the odd one to us. More likely to put a target on our back at an eye watering cost to treasury AND the other things we'd delay or give up.

oldsig

The response to the question put to Frank Kendall and the Chief of RAAF, was whether the US might be interested in joining the US as a partner in developing B-21A ala F-35 program and latterly the Precision Strike Missile Program, not simply acquiring it.

For such a very specific question to be asked and answered in the relative affirmative, that information came from somewhere, it wasn’t speculatory…

Now our Defence Minister no less, has publicly confirmed Defence is assessing it. Perhaps this has hit the radar (no pun intended) as a result of AUKUS?

Being a development partner, should such a momentous thing get the green light, will be a different situation entirely, to merely acquiring the capability as an FMS customer…

Should it come to pass, the howls of outrage for us acquiring a nuclear capable strategic bomber AND nuclear powered submarines, will be absolutely glorious…