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

[ADMk2]

There is a difference between the two as well with the Triton being a HALE UAV and the SeaGuardian being a MALE UAV. The SeaGuardian is also able to deploy sonar buoys which IIRC the Triton can't, so it's basically a one trick pony. All it can do is tell you what's on the surface and not undertake a subsurface search if required. Those Hellfires can cause problems for people if need be especially if there are no assets within significant range and we're talking Aussie distances here

That one trick includes radar, EO/IR, SIGINT, ELINT and comms relay capabilities…

 

[ngatimozart]

That one trick includes radar, EO/IR, SIGINT, ELINT and comms relay capabilities…

I stand corrected. I won't mention the cricket.

We don't always agree with Hugh White but here he does speak some sense.

Australia and B‑21 bombers: less bang for the buck | Lowy Institute

It’s an expensive habit to think about the military not as a practical tool but as a symbol of strategic intent.

www.lowyinstitute.org

When I had a think about it, because I read this earlier today, the points he makes about the B-21 are quite valid. It's no good using it to attack the PRC because the weapons that the RAAF would be capable of delivering wouldn't do any worthwhile damage. It's be like hitting a saltwater croc's snout with a plastic hammer. You ain't really gonna harm it and all you're gonna do is make it real grumpy. The only way it would be practical was if Australia was to field nuclear weapons and at present that is not an option.

The second point he makes is that using it for maritime strike is also a waste of time because for the same cost you can have say four times the number of F-35 / F-18F / P-8 / future UCAV etc., and able to place more missiles on target from outside of the shipborne IADS. If you require to get your aircraft closer to the targets then maybe it's time to have polite discussions with Indonesia and be very nice to them.

 

[ADMk2]

I stand corrected. I won't mention the cricket.

We don't always agree with Hugh White but here he does speak some sense.

Australia and B‑21 bombers: less bang for the buck | Lowy Institute

It’s an expensive habit to think about the military not as a practical tool but as a symbol of strategic intent.

www.lowyinstitute.org

When I had a think about it, because I read this earlier today, the points he makes about the B-21 are quite valid. It's no good using it to attack the PRC because the weapons that the RAAF would be capable of delivering wouldn't do any worthwhile damage. It's be like hitting a saltwater croc's snout with a plastic hammer. You ain't really gonna harm it and all you're gonna do is make it real grumpy. The only way it would be practical was if Australia was to field nuclear weapons and at present that is not an option.

The second point he makes is that using it for maritime strike is also a waste of time because for the same cost you can have say four times the number of F-35 / F-18F / P-8 / future UCAV etc., and able to place more missiles on target from outside of the shipborne IADS. If you require to get your aircraft closer to the targets then maybe it's time to have polite discussions with Indonesia and be very nice to them.

I tend to agree, in part. I mean the PRC ain’t going to be happy with 2000lbs JDAM’s raining down on all their critical infrastructure, but would that be decisive?

If the budget and manning is there to spend so much on such a niche capability for the RAAF, then use the cash and staffing to bolster it by adding some mass and expand our fighter fleets, refuelling capabilities and weapons stocks.

The presence of intercontinental strike bombers in our force structure although very obviously aimed at China, is likely IMHO, the have the opposite effect on our neighbours, in terms of working jointly together and gaining basing / access rights in a period of conflict. What do you need them for, might well be the question asked? You have nuclear submarines and intercontinental bombers, why involve us?

 

[ngatimozart]

The presence of intercontinental strike bombers in our force structure although very obviously aimed at China, is likely IMHO, the have the opposite effect on our neighbours, in terms of working jointly together and gaining basing / access rights in a period of conflict. What do you need them for, might well be the question asked? You have nuclear submarines and intercontinental bombers, why involve us?

I was working on the premise that you don't have intercontinental strike bombers and that if you and Indonesian found yourselves in conflict with the PRC, then it may be beneficial to both parties if RAAF aircraft were forward based within Indonesian territory and / or granted overflight rights.

 

[Ananda]

then it may be beneficial to both parties if RAAF aircraft were forward based within Indonesian territory and / or granted overflight rights.

The presence of intercontinental strike bombers in our force structure although very obviously aimed at China, is likely IMHO, the have the opposite effect on our neighbours, in terms of working jointly together and gaining basing / access rights in a period of conflict

Under present Indonesian Political climate, that kind of situation can only happens if PRC become hostile to the neighbors and conducting invasion toward them, including Indonesia. Other than that, it will not happen.

It is simply consider too provocative to China, and I don't think any of the ASEAN neighbor (outside Singapore and Malaysia) will do it. Singapore and Malaysia I believe only doing it for existing arrangements, that create basically toward Indonesia and not China in 60's.

AS Berencana Kirim Pesawat Pembom B52 ke Australia, Kemlu RI Imbau Bangun Situasi Kondusif

Indonesia menanggapi dengan tenang rencana Amerika untuk mengerahkan enam pesawat pembom B-52 yang berkemampuan nuklir ke sebuah pangkalan udara di bagian utara Australia.

www.voaindonesia.com

This's Indonesian MoFA statement on the talk of US basing B-52 in Australia. It is base mostly on premise for everyone to conduct condusive environment. The response not base on Indonesia suspicion on B-52 in Australia, but more on worries how this is going to attract different reaction from China.

TNI AU dan United State Pacific Air Force akan Latihan Bersama - Ulasan.co

TNI Angkatan Udara (AU) dan United State Pacific Air Force (USPACAF) rencananya akan mengadakan latihan bersama tahun 2023 mendatang.

ulasan.co

Indonesia like to do it gradually based on situation development. In 2021 there's fly by exercise with USAF PACAF B-52 in Sulawesi Sea. Now planning to extend the 2023 exercise with temporary landing and ground support for B-52 in Batam AB.

All this shown Indonesia willing increase the co-op, as long as not too provocative to China. It is can be seen on recent defense procurement drive that also consider more to enhance defensive assets.

So could Indonesia open basing agreement in future ? All depends on how China behavior toward their neighbors. For most part, most of the SEA neighbor still see China have potential doing something to Taiwan, but not to SEA neighbors. Taiwan is China's Ukraine if comparison can be make, but not SEA neighbors (at least so far).

 

[STURM]

Singapore and Malaysia I believe only doing it for existing arrangements, that create basically toward Indonesia and not China in 60's.

When formed in 1971 the FPDA had a pair of primary aims; the first was to provide some form of assurance to Malaysia and Singapore which both feared another round of Indonesian aggression after the East of Suez pullout and to serve as a platform for Malaysian/Singaporean defence cooperation.

The response not base on Indonesia suspicion on B-52 in Australia, but more on worries how this is going to attract different reaction from China

China has no allies per see in South East Asia or the Pacific but imagine what the reaction would be if at some point in the future it announced that in response to hostile U.S. actions; including the basing of B-52s in northern Australia; it was basing a squadron's worth of fighters and a SAM battery in Cambodia or a Pacific island. Now certain countries would cry foul but it would be a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Or, China could say that like U.S. assets based in various countries; its assets in Cambodia or a Pacifc island are not aimed at anyone but contributes to regional stability and is in line with national interests.

If I was a Chinese planner and was looking at a map; I would be far more worried about U.S. assets based in Guam and the Philippines [a U.S. treaty linked ally] rather than Australia which is on the periphery.

 

[Ananda]

its assets in Cambodia or a Pacifc island are not aimed at anyone but contributes to regional stability and is in line with national interests.

Yes, that's why I don't see most in SEA going to 'cross' the threshold (on basing arrangements) yet. It just not want to provide potential escalation. That's why Indonesian MoFA response on B-52 plan basing in Australia, more on call everyone to keep maintain condusive environment.

Unless China interaction with their SEA neighbor changes, nobody going to cross the threshold.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Or, China could say that like U.S. assets based in various countries; its assets in Cambodia or a Pacifc island are not aimed at anyone but contributes to regional stability and is in line with national interests.

If I was a Chinese planner and was looking at a map; I would be far more worried about U.S. assets based in Guam and the Philippines [a U.S. treaty linked ally] rather than Australia which is on the periphery.

Australia is a long way away from China. This idea that some how we are next to each other is bizarre. Some parts of Australia are literally as far from China as you can get on the planet. Literally the only region further away is south America. We are in a different hemisphere. There is series of buffer countries and half a billion people.

London is closer to Beijing than Canberra is. By like 1000 km. Does China complain about US F-35's in the UK?
Anchorage Alaska is only further to Beijing than Darwin by 300km. Is China complaining about B-52 based on the continental United States? Do they want the Americans to move Alaska?

If we are talking about far flung China sand castles in the south China sea, well, Tindal existed before they existed, China shouldn't build sand castles under historic flight paths nearer to powerful nations. Best to keep the the waters you are used to.

 

[Redlands18]

More on the RAAF’s new Medium Airlift Aircraft - Australian Defence Magazine
Some more info from ADM Magazine on the project to acquire 24 C-130J-30 later this decade
The final aircraft will be delivered to coincide with the existing fleet drawdown.
The sustainment RFP calls for 18 aircraft to be available at any given time.
Delivery timeline expected to be
Ac 1-4 Q4 2027
Ac 5-8 Q1 2029
Ac 9-11 Q2 2030
Ac 12-15 Q2 2031
Ac 16-18 Q2 2033
Ac 19-21 Q3 2034
Ac 22-24 Q3 2035

 

[John Newman]

More on the RAAF’s new Medium Airlift Aircraft - Australian Defence Magazine
Some more info from ADM Magazine on the project to acquire 24 C-130J-30 later this decade
The final aircraft will be delivered to coincide with the existing fleet drawdown.
The sustainment RFP calls for 18 aircraft to be available at any given time.
Delivery timeline expected to be
Ac 1-4 Q4 2027
Ac 5-8 Q1 2029
Ac 9-11 Q2 2030
Ac 12-15 Q2 2031
Ac 16-18 Q2 2033
Ac 19-21 Q3 2034
Ac 22-24 Q3 2035

Yes I read the article this morning, a couple of points to be made.

Firstly, the author of the article is making an assumption that the first batch of aircraft are replacing the existing fleet first, eg:

“Presumably IOC will also mark the completion of drawdown of the current Hercules fleet.”

If true, we wouldn’t see an increase in fleet size until after 2030, it may well be the other way around too, eg, first batch ‘grows’ the fleet, second batch replaces the original 12 aircraft.

If the project proceeds, that process needs clarity.

Secondly, it would appear the potential doubling in size of the Herc fleet doesn’t answer what happens to the C-27J fleet.

Anyway, a couple of questions still need answers.

 

[John Newman]

Yes I read the article this morning, a couple of points to be made.

Firstly, the author of the article is making an assumption that the first batch of aircraft are replacing the existing fleet first, eg:

“Presumably IOC will also mark the completion of drawdown of the current Hercules fleet.”

If true, we wouldn’t see an increase in fleet size until after 2030, it may well be the other way around too, eg, first batch ‘grows’ the fleet, second batch replaces the original 12 aircraft.

If the project proceeds, that process needs clarity.

Secondly, it would appear the potential doubling in size of the Herc fleet doesn’t answer what happens to the C-27J fleet.

Anyway, a couple of questions still need answers.

I’ve just re-read the ADM article, and I think the author of the article, Nigel Pittaway, has confused/contradicted himself.

Just to recap, he suggested that the ‘completion of the drawdown’ of the current fleet would happen at IOC (IOC of the first batch of new aircraft is planned for 2030).

But there is also a quote from a Defence spokesperson:

“... a Defence spokesperson said only that the final aircraft “will be delivered in time to coincide with the existing fleet drawdown.” “

If that’s the case, the final ‘new’ aircraft is due in Q3 2035 according to the article, FOC is scheduled for 2036.

If I’m reading that correct, it would appear the size of the Herc fleet should grow in numbers from the beginning of the project, that makes more sense.

 

[StingrayOZ]

If true, we wouldn’t see an increase in fleet size until after 2030, it may well be the other way around too, eg, first batch ‘grows’ the fleet, second batch replaces the original 12 aircraft.

Depending on the timing and deliveries, the c27j may just phase out. I would imagine there would be other countries interested in buying them off Australia for a lower price. Bulgaria, Greece, Kenya, Lithuania, Morocco, Mexico, Peru, Romania, Sloakia, Solvenia and Zambia all have C27 fleets. Australia could bundle it up as aid to say Kenya or Eastern Europe in 10 years. The oldest one will be 10 years old in 2024, so if we are talking a phase out after 2035, they are 20 year old planes. While not ancient, 2/3rds through their life is reasonable for moving them on.

 

[Takao]

Secondly, it would appear the potential doubling in size of the Herc fleet doesn’t answer what happens to the C-27J fleet.

Park it with the M777s and MRH at the best place for them - the 30 fathom line.

The C-27J isn't a capability. It was poorly scoped and the insolvable problems it has means it just isn't worth the time or money. Even their shift to supporting HADR in Australia is grasping at straws.

The replacement for the tactical aircraft filled by the DHC-4 is the CH-47F. I'd rather the RAAF look at bosting their long-range airlift than the tactical stuff. That part of the RAAF is vital, and unique in that it can actually achieve strategic missions alone (and yes, I'd love to double or triple 36 Sqn...).

 

[Volkodav]

Park it with the M777s and MRH at the best place for them - the 30 fathom line.

The C-27J isn't a capability. It was poorly scoped and the insolvable problems it has means it just isn't worth the time or money. Even their shift to supporting HADR in Australia is grasping at straws.

The replacement for the tactical aircraft filled by the DHC-4 is the CH-47F. I'd rather the RAAF look at bosting their long-range airlift than the tactical stuff. That part of the RAAF is vital, and unique in that it can actually achieve strategic missions alone (and yes, I'd love to double or triple 36 Sqn...).

There has been no shortage of lightweight articles recently justifying scrapping the LAND 400 IFVs because we couldn't possibly deploy them, quite often in the same publications lauding the rapid provision of heavy equipment to Ukraine by C-17.

Yes the Lynx and Redback are much heavier than M-113 or bushie, but you can still fit two on a C-17. Not just them but K-9, HIMARS, NASAMS, Abrams, Boxer are all deployable by C-17. You wouldnt airlift an entire brigade, or even battle group, but a dozen or more C-17s could certainly lift a heavy combat team and enablers into our region to quickly bolster a friendly nation that was getting twitchy about an unfriendly amphibious group off their coast.

The battle group / brigade would still have to come by sea but securing the airport and port beforehand, or more to the point, preventing someone else from doing so, would allow time to do this.

 

[vonnoobie]

With out wanting to go into the fantasy land but this is why I think work needs to get restarted on Hubrid airships. The US had a number of different programs between if memeory serves 2008 and 2013 that ended up being scrapped/cancelled though never been able to find an actual reason why. What I do recall from them in regards to the research is they where actually more survivable against AD then regular aircraft so combat operations would potentially be better off with an airship and they had long term design goals of transporting north of 1,000 tons of cargo. At this stage the civilian market is picking it up but long term as vehicles get heavier and heavier it will just make it harder to airlift assets, at least in useful numbers. Just my thoughts though

 

[Stampede]

With out wanting to go into the fantasy land but this is why I think work needs to get restarted on Hubrid airships. The US had a number of different programs between if memeory serves 2008 and 2013 that ended up being scrapped/cancelled though never been able to find an actual reason why. What I do recall from them in regards to the research is they where actually more survivable against AD then regular aircraft so combat operations would potentially be better off with an airship and they had long term design goals of transporting north of 1,000 tons of cargo. At this stage the civilian market is picking it up but long term as vehicles get heavier and heavier it will just make it harder to airlift assets, at least in useful numbers. Just my thoughts though

An interesting area.
I followed with interest Air ship industries attempt to build and find markets for their products back in the 80s and 90s.
They like others tried and failed.
As to the concepts future I cannot say.
A balancing act of finances,physics,perception,need and other aviation options.
Their would certainly be a market to transport 1000t of cargo by air. Just not sure what such a platform looks like.
Hybrid airship, maybe.................................wait and see.


Cheers S

 

[Stampede]

There has been no shortage of lightweight articles recently justifying scrapping the LAND 400 IFVs because we couldn't possibly deploy them, quite often in the same publications lauding the rapid provision of heavy equipment to Ukraine by C-17.

Yes the Lynx and Redback are much heavier than M-113 or bushie, but you can still fit two on a C-17. Not just them but K-9, HIMARS, NASAMS, Abrams, Boxer are all deployable by C-17. You wouldnt airlift an entire brigade, or even battle group, but a dozen or more C-17s could certainly lift a heavy combat team and enablers into our region to quickly bolster a friendly nation that was getting twitchy about an unfriendly amphibious group off their coast.

The battle group / brigade would still have to come by sea but securing the airport and port beforehand, or more to the point, preventing someone else from doing so, would allow time to do this.

It would be nice if AUKUS gave us some scope to get an additional second hand C-17 or two from the USAF.

I wonder if the question was asked?


Cheers S

 

[hauritz]

The first C-17s are actually not that much newer than the C-130J. The first RAAF C-17s entered service in 2006. The last of the C-130Js arrived in 2001. The USAF C-17s are even older dating back to 1995. I would think that at some point over the next decade both nations are going to have to deal with that. Whether it is refurbishing, bringing the C-17 back into production or seeking some entirely new design remains to be seen.

 

[StingrayOZ]

The first C-17s are actually not that much newer than the C-130J. The first RAAF C-17s entered service in 2006. The last of the C-130Js arrived in 2001. The USAF C-17s are even older dating back to 1995. I would think that at some point over the next decade both nations are going to have to deal with that. Whether it is refurbishing, bringing the C-17 back into production or seeking some entirely new design remains to be seen.

I think the only realistic option is some sort of life extension for the existing C17 fleet. There are no C17s sitting in bone yards.

US has lot of C17's, but they are heavily used and the US has a lot to lift, The C5's seem to end getting close to EOL, while in theory they could last to 2040, they haven't exactly be economical to operate and availability never really got right up there.

Really the only option is other lift aircraft to reduce the reliance on the C17. C130 is the obvious. A400 is another. The C2 is another. But these are clearly in the 20-30t range, well short of the C17. The C2 might have some development potential to get to 40T, perhaps with the new C6E1 engines, which might make it at least able to carry anything except SPG and M1 tanks. They could carry a large load of smaller vehicles. In terms of HDAR smaller planes may be more manageable.

There could be engine commonality across any upgraded new gen C2 and the KC-30 A330 fleet. But given our issues with the C27J we would need to go into such an arrangement eyes open. Perhaps with other partner nations.

The other option is increase sealift.

 

[ddxx]

The other option is increase sealift.

I really don’t see this as an either or situation. The reality is (for me at least) both airlift and sealift fleets need to be bolstered.