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

[John Newman]

Really? By the discussion going on here you’d think the RAAF, and global, C-17A fleet is on its last legs.

Not true.

Every five years each C-17A returns to Boeing in the US for a six month heavy maintenance strip down and rebuild.

And they have also had their designed service life/flight hours extended too:

This C-17 just achieved 25,000 flight hours

Specifically this paragraph:

“The C-17 was to be designed to withstand 30,000 flight hours, and then certified to fly 42,750 flight hours. In partnership with the U.S. Air Force and eight global partners, Boeing leverages analytics and digital tools to help each aircraft safely surpass its service life objectives in support of critical missions.”

They are now certified to fly 42,750 flight hours, I’ll repeat that, 42,750 flight hours!

They are not running out of life anytime soon.

Here’s an interesting comparison:

RAAF classic Hornet fleet hits 400,000 hours | ADBR

The RAAF’s fleet of 71 McDonnell Douglas/Boeing F/A-18A/B ‘classic’ Hornets passed a fleet total milestone of 400,000 flying hours in August. The RAAF took delivery of 57 single-seat F/A-18As and…

adbr.com.au

After 30+ years of RAAF service, the average flight hours of each Classic Hornet was LESS THAN 5,500 flight hours.


The global C-17A fleet has many many many decades of service life ahead of them.

 

[StingrayOZ]

The global C-17A fleet has many many many decades of service life ahead of them.

Probably the biggest issue for service life is the Engines, not sure how many 757's will be operating in 2040. So it will be down to the C17 fleet to operate that type. I would imagine longer service and more efficient service could happen with an engine upgrade. But the US being the biggest operator would either manage or plan around that. Its of a commercial origin and pretty reliable, just somewhat orphaned going forward.

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.

Definitely. Challenges face both. Land400 vehicles are significantly heavier and bigger than earlier versions. Realistically, we would be moving equipment in our region by sea, with just ready reaction type stuff getting flown in. In that sense, I see little reason for M1, Redbacks, and significant numbers of land400 vehicles to be airlifted. More likely bushies and hawkies and a limited number of larger vehicles.

 

[John Newman]

Probably the biggest issue for service life is the Engines, not sure how many 757's will be operating in 2040. So it will be down to the C17 fleet to operate that type. I would imagine longer service and more efficient service could happen with an engine upgrade. But the US being the biggest operator would either manage or plan around that. Its of a commercial origin and pretty reliable, just somewhat orphaned going forward.

Mate,

I think you are being a bit pessimistic, a bit glass half empty regarding engines.

P&W built a commercial variant (PW2000) and a military variant (F117) of the same family/type of engines.


B757
From what I can find, Boeing built 1049 B757, 59%, 617 aircraft, were powered by RR RB211 and 41%, 432 aircraft, were powered by P&W PW2000 engines.

432 x 2 engines per aircraft is 864 fitted engines, plus spares, it would be reasonable to assume at least 1000 engines built, maybe more?


C-17A
Boeing built 279 C-17A, one USAF aircraft lost in 2010 due to pilot error in Alaska.

Today, 278 x 4 engines fitted is 1112.

P&W built 1313 x F117 engines in total, that means there are approx 200 ‘spare’ engines for the global fleet.

End of an Era: Production of C-17 Aircraft Engines Comes to a Close

End of an Era: Production of C-17 Aircraft Engines Comes to a Close

www.nationaldefensemagazine.org

I don’t think there is a shortage of either PW2000 or F117 engine today, and if P&W, Boeing and the USAF were concerned, they could probably buy up stocks of PW2000 engines as B757 aircraft retire from commercial service.


One last point, the remaining B-52H are now 60+ years old, and it’s only NOW they are being re-engined too.

I wouldn’t be surprised if the C-17A fleet, fitted with F117 engines, outlives both you and me!

 

[John Newman]

And a new bird takes flight:

A35-059 75Sq KNFW 11-17-22 Snyder photos | F-16.net

www.f-16.net

A35-059 took to the air just a few days ago, 17/11/22. Be interesting to see if -060 makes it into the air before years end too?

There should have been 63 RAAF F-35A completed by years end, but Covid slowed LM production down a little bit.

Anyway, I’m pretty certain the RAAF currently has the largest F-35 fleet outside of the US.

 

[Mark_Evans]

And a new bird takes flight:

A35-059 75Sq KNFW 11-17-22 Snyder photos | F-16.net

www.f-16.net

A35-059 took to the air just a few days ago, 17/11/22. Be interesting to see if -060 makes it into the air before years end too?

There should have been 63 RAAF F-35A completed by years end, but Covid slowed LM production down a little bit.

Anyway, I’m pretty certain the RAAF currently has the largest F-35 fleet outside of the US.

Probably the biggest at the moment but Japan will overtake is with 147 planned. Interesting that the article quotes Australia as having committed to 100.

F-35: Which Countries Use The Aircraft?

The Lightning programme has seen more than 500 fighter jets delivered so far - but which nations are flying it?

www.forces.net

 

[John Newman]

Probably the biggest at the moment but Japan will overtake is with 147 planned. Interesting that the article quotes Australia as having committed to 100.

F-35: Which Countries Use The Aircraft?

The Lightning programme has seen more than 500 fighter jets delivered so far - but which nations are flying it?

www.forces.net

Yes I’m aware of that, that’s why I wrote ‘currently’, eg, aircraft delivered to date.

And no, we haven’t committed to 100 aircraft, there is a phase of AIR 6000 that is not due for a decision until the 2025-26 time frame.

 

[Depot Dog]

Probably the biggest at the moment but Japan will overtake is with 147 planned. Interesting that the article quotes Australia as having committed to 100.

F-35: Which Countries Use The Aircraft?

The Lightning programme has seen more than 500 fighter jets delivered so far - but which nations are flying it?

www.forces.net

This article was written in 2020. I thought I would google for a more current article. First I looked at the Lockheed Martin F35 site

F-35 Global Partnership

The F-35 Global Partnership

www.lockheedmartin.com

.

The information was dated. It has Australia with 100 aircraft with 10 delivered. I just read on this forum 059 is flying.
Other googled articles with puff pieces of how good the F35 is. Finally I went to the much maligned Wiki

Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II procurement - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Quanity is correct but it is a little behind in its production tables.

Regards
DD

 

[STURM]

Australia is a long way away from China. .

Indded. Which is why the Chinese would be more worried about Guam, Okinawa and other places but all those places are further eastwards and ultimately they know that U.S. assets based in Australia are aimed at them and that in time of war those assets will be useful when it comes to deploying to parts of South East Asia.

My question still stands : what would be the international reaction if China declared that in response to certain "provocative" acts by the U.S. and its ever compliant proxy Australia; it was stationing aircraft and troops in Myanmar and Cambodia? For that matter what can the U.S. and Australia realistically which they aren't already doing if China decides to have regular naval deployments to the Solomans and other places which are Australia's backyard; areas Australia has traditionally held a lot of influence in with no competing players?

 

[StingrayOZ]

it was stationing aircraft and troops in Myanmar and Cambodia?For that matter what can the U.S. and Australia realistically which they aren't already doing if China decides to have regular naval deployments to the Solomans and other places which are Australia's backyard; areas Australia has traditionally held a lot of influence in with no competing players?

I'm not sure prepositioning helps the Chinese a whole lot, arguably their best defended space is mainland China itself, as you move away from that location, capability decreases and vulnerability increases. Hiding in another country isn't going to stop the Americans. They still won't be able to start bombing mainland USA from any new bases in Cambodia or SCS islands or simular.

Far flung Chinese bases helps them in times of non-war. When the time comes, the US will be striking out from Guam and Hawaii and the mainland as well as allied bases in Japan, Korea, Australia, etc, and any isolated units out at these locations are going to be toast. They won't have the capability to defend the kind of strike package the US can muster for a day one strike.

Australia gives another vector to project power. One of the hardest places for the US to project power to is the Indian ocean. If they could knock out Garcia (possible, there is no great protection there and its a very small remote island and very dependent on resupply) , then the US would have a tough time, by itself to knock out forces dug in or operating there. To our north the Sunda and Malacca straits are absolutely critical as are their approaches.

Allied shipping would likely also have to go around Australia, so looking after Australian waters would be critical hence why P8's are very useful and important.

Australia is far enough away the more numerous missiles that China have, can't reach mainland Australia. The long range weapons they have, are likely to be prioritized on other juicier targets or held back until its clear which bases the US needs and which it doesn't. Australia also isn't nothing, its got JORN, it has a Navy, it has an Airforce, it has buffer states of considerable size, it can't be shelled or easily attacked from the Ocean. The seas around Darwin are shallow, not and ideal place to get tangled up in or hide long term. It if becomes vulnerable, Australia has lots of other spaces assets could be moved too, even further out of range. We have loads of strategic depth.

I can see why China is annoyed. But realistically, Australia isn't about a first strike location for the Americans. Its about a long and sustained series of uppercuts. Heavy bombers, chock a block, dumping tonnage. Continuously. First to take out naval units, then they just keep coming. Not just from Australia, from Alaska, Hawaii, those outer locations, but heavy hitters. So in that context, its not friendly news. But the US has to really win the local war around China before these really come into play.

But do the Chinese believe the Americans will actually go to war with them, over Taiwan? The question is more of political will, the US is making it possible though, as a deterrent. Hence the spiraling situation.

 

[Redlands18]

One thing we need to keep in mind, is where the Chinese Naval shipbuilding priorities seem to be at this stage, is a large powerful surface fleet and that to me suggests controlling the SCS, Sea of Japan, Western Pacific. SSGNs don't seem to be that high on the list of priorities and considering the depth of the Oceans surrounding Australia, an attack on Australia should start with Submarine launched Missiles and China does not have the SSGN fleet at present to attack Australia and control North Asian waters at the same time and will not have in the mid-term future.

 

[jack412]

And no, we haven’t committed to 100 aircraft, there is a phase of AIR 6000 that is not due for a decision until the 2025-26 time frame.

I saw an article that said a decision of more F-35, has been moved forward to next year. I agree with you. As well as currently having a large number of F-35. I recall, we were the first to retire and move to a sole F-35 fleet.

 

[StingrayOZ]

The war isn't going to be fought in and around Australian waters, I agree. China isn't imperial Japan. Japan smashed through Russia, China, the US in the Phillipines, tore through SEA, smashed the Americans in Hawaii, again, Smashed the British Empire in Malaya and Singapore, smashed the Dutch in Indonesia. Europe was completely tied up and our forces were over there.

Japanese raiding attacks on Australia were more meaningful after all of that, as it would and did shape Australian thinking on Defence.

That isn't what we are talking about here. Australia is as we all agree, far away from China. China has no real intention of invading, or even attacking Australia in a meaningful way. The japanese took years to fight there way to our door step, the Chinese don't have enough instant missile launch to attack Australia, and Australia isn't the main game anyway.

The main game is Taiwan. The main game is China. China will focus on the substantial issues it has directly around (500-1000km) of Taiwan. In terms of diplomacy, soft and hard, influence etc, yes, they look wider than Taiwan. But they aren't going to go around the world, destroying every allied base, to take the world by global conquest by military power. They intend to take Taiwan, deter interference in taking it. The intend to look mean and big enough to push aside outside help. If the west tries to strangle their supply lines, then they we work to restore them, hence the interest in soft and hard diplomacy in the South Pacific and the Indian ocean and in Africa and the middle east.

They aren't terribly worried about US heavies in Tindal. Guam, yes. They want Japan and SK to be out of the fight, by threat of force, and honestly, they can probably do that, certainly enough to keep them both busy and make political decisions hard for them. Tindal becomes more important long term in a longer conflict, but for the Chinese, they first need to win the first part, take Taiwan.

I saw an article that said a decision of more F-35, has been moved forward to next year. As well as currently having a large number of F-35. I recall, we were the first to retire and move to a F-35 fleet.

F-35 is a critical asset. We need 4 squadrons, a very logical and real argument was put for that capability. Particularly if we want to rotate them through Butterworth or elsewhere. We do want to do that. We are the only ones who really can do that.

Drones and other systems are still a way off replacing that kind of core capability. Particularly into the 5-10 year window of the future we are concerned with.

I presume our 4th squadron will be BlkIV, which will also help with our migration of legacy F-35 to blkIV which some/all will need hardware upgrades.

 

[John Fedup]

I'm not sure prepositioning helps the Chinese a whole lot, arguably their best defended space is mainland China itself, as you move away from that location, capability decreases and vulnerability increases. Hiding in another country isn't going to stop the Americans. They still won't be able to start bombing mainland USA from any new bases in Cambodia or SCS islands or simular.

Far flung Chinese bases helps them in times of non-war. When the time comes, the US will be striking out from Guam and Hawaii and the mainland as well as allied bases in Japan, Korea, Australia, etc, and any isolated units out at these locations are going to be toast. They won't have the capability to defend the kind of strike package the US can muster for a day one strike.

Australia gives another vector to project power. One of the hardest places for the US to project power to is the Indian ocean. If they could knock out Garcia (possible, there is no great protection there and its a very small remote island and very dependent on resupply) , then the US would have a tough time, by itself to knock out forces dug in or operating there. To our north the Sunda and Malacca straits are absolutely critical as are their approaches.

Allied shipping would likely also have to go around Australia, so looking after Australian waters would be critical hence why P8's are very useful and important.

Australia is far enough away the more numerous missiles that China have, can't reach mainland Australia. The long range weapons they have, are likely to be prioritized on other juicier targets or held back until its clear which bases the US needs and which it doesn't. Australia also isn't nothing, its got JORN, it has a Navy, it has an Airforce, it has buffer states of considerable size, it can't be shelled or easily attacked from the Ocean. The seas around Darwin are shallow, not and ideal place to get tangled up in or hide long term. It if becomes vulnerable, Australia has lots of other spaces assets could be moved too, even further out of range. We have loads of strategic depth.

I can see why China is annoyed. But realistically, Australia isn't about a first strike location for the Americans. Its about a long and sustained series of uppercuts. Heavy bombers, chock a block, dumping tonnage. Continuously. First to take out naval units, then they just keep coming. Not just from Australia, from Alaska, Hawaii, those outer locations, but heavy hitters. So in that context, its not friendly news. But the US has to really win the local war around China before these really come into play.

But do the Chinese believe the Americans will actually go to war with them, over Taiwan? The question is more of political will, the US is making it possible though, as a deterrent. Hence the spiraling situation.

Japan and SKorea’s response to a Chinese invasion of Taiwan would be a huge influence in a US decision to go to war. A reluctance by the US to commit would be a huge red flag for allies.

 

[Redlands18]

Japan and SKorea’s response to a Chinese invasion of Taiwan would be a huge influence in a US decision to go to war. A reluctance by the US to commit would be a huge red flag for allies.

The other Elephant in the room is North Korea, what will they do in response to an invasion of Taiwan. May just decide with the Americans distracted to make an attempt to re-unify Korea.

 

[Redlands18]

I saw an article that said a decision of more F-35, has been moved forward to next year. I agree with you. As well as currently having a large number of F-35. I recall, we were the first to retire and move to a sole F-35 fleet.

We are not operating a sole F-35 fleet, our current fast jet fleet is 72* F-35, 24 FA-18F and 12** EA-18G.
*About 12-14 still to be delivered
** 1 replacement aircraft ordered.

 

[hauritz]

I feel we would need to retain the Rhino even if we did get a fourth squadron of F-35. Even if the F-18f was pretty much just put into storage I think it would be too valuable an asset to dispose of.

 

[ADMk2]

We are not operating a sole F-35 fleet, our current fast jet fleet is 72* F-35, 24 FA-18F and 12** EA-18G.
*About 12-14 still to be delivered
** 1 replacement aircraft ordered.

F/A-18F is also going to be our main long-range striker for the next ‘nn’ number of years as well, as it is getting LRASM and JASSM-ER first out of any RAAF assets and possibly the first capability in the entire ADF to introduce the new long-ranged strike capabilities that have been announced.

It’s lack of LO isn’t going to be such an issue when it is firing 900k ranged stand-off land attack weapons and 500k + maritime strike weapons and it’s Block 3 upgrades in cohorts with the USN should keep it reasonably relevant.

In that light I don’t see that fleet going anywhere for 10 years or so at least, given that operational responsibility and the fact that F-35 can’t take it on, until the relevant Block IV upgrades are rolled out across the fleet, weapons integrated and so forth.

If additional F-35’s are on the way courtesy of DSR, then it’ll be as a 5th overall RAAF fighter squadron, not as a replacement for F/A-18F…

 

[StingrayOZ]

In that light I don’t see that fleet going anywhere for 10 years or so at least, given that operational responsibility and the fact that F-35 can’t take it on, until the relevant Block IV upgrades are rolled out across the fleet, weapons integrated and so forth.

I agree. Plus having a trusty old 4.5g ready for high tempo operations while the F-35 program is still stretching legs is useful. They will be absolutely critical while the blk4 is being implemented. Even post that, although I do wonder if it might be worth using the Growlers more like normal hornets once the blk4 and MC-55 capability is online. So those 12 might eventually fade away or phase out.

 

[ADMk2]

I agree. Plus having a trusty old 4.5g ready for high tempo operations while the F-35 program is still stretching legs is useful. They will be absolutely critical while the blk4 is being implemented. Even post that, although I do wonder if it might be worth using the Growlers more like normal hornets once the blk4 and MC-55 capability is online. So those 12 might eventually fade away or phase out.

IIP actually hand (long range) plans to not only ‘not fade out’ the Growlers but replace and even expand the fleet. No detail besides a huge intended funding bracket but if that remains the intent, then undoubtedly we’ll hear much more about it.

RAAF to some degree seem more enthusiastic about it’s capability than they do F-35 in some ways…

 

[StingrayOZ]

IIP actually hand (long range) plans to not only ‘not fade out’ the Growlers but replace and even expand the fleet. No detail besides a huge intended funding bracket but if that remains the intent, then undoubtedly we’ll hear much more about it.

RAAF to some degree seem more enthusiastic about it’s capability than they do F-35 in some ways…

IMO in the short term its hard to say. IMO.

The MC-55 capability the RAAF is building is still a bit different from what the USAF is doing, and what is promised and what actually works with F-35 are two different things. Then this would also be a space drones would be expected to be useful in.

But the reality is the Growlers are here an now. I am glad we have them. In spaces where perhaps allied air power is not at full conflict engagement levels, owning the electronic and electromagnetic battlespace is huge. It is also a capability light on the ground with allies. We still have the ability to expand Growler capability if we need or want to. I always thought Blk III upgrades for the growler would be particularly useful.

Superhornets and growlers operating out of Guam/Japan is certainly something I could see happening, combined with E7 and MC-55 and P8's. It certainly not just about airframes to drop munitions from, we could add significant specialized capability in that area.