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

[seaspear]

The f35-b although a sophisticated aircraft is limited by range ,certainly countries can usefully deploy them from aircraft carriers and countries where airfields can quickly be attacked ,the next generation engines mentioned in this article for the F-35 do not include the b model , The cost of these engines are likely to be very expensive . It may even be possible for the development of the unmanned drones to be developed to provide a cheaper alternative from small islands
The Air Force is eyeing groundbreaking new engines for the F-35 - Sandboxx

 

[ngatimozart]

Lets leave aside the F-35 on LHD for a moment given that it should not be discussed, this is the wrong thread for it, and obvious limited capabilities. But I think the F-35B might be worthy of discussion in the RAAF thread.

• The F-35B is a useful aircraft. It is the most advanced 5th gen available. It is being integrated with all the existing RAAF weapons stocks. It will continue to do so.
• The F-35B has high commonality to the F-35A. Its not a mixed fleet type proposal of operation, while there are differences they are of the order of variations of the same plane. Many air forces operate both F-35A and F-35B aircraft.
• The USMC made a F-35B deployment to a mainland austre airfield as part of Pitchblack this year. There is an existing model of how this could be supported for the F-35B. There is no model/system for the F-35A. Thus it cannot and has not be deployed that way. In attempting to do so, eg developing a special probe version of the F-35, improving its short field performance, you have now re-created a F-35B (or F-35C). Marines exercise austere operations in Top End - Australian Defence Magazine
• The F-35B could operate from smaller island airfields, such as many in our region, including Christmas Island, Momote, which would give Australia key strategic reach. Projecting power with the F-35 (part 4): offshore bases | The Strategist
• Many other nations have either acquired or are intending to acquire F-35B to operate from forward fields, using ships to essentially transport the planes and assist in supporting planes from these bases. Including the US, Italy, UK and Japan (and soon Spain). The idea isn't that these ships conduct blue water operations in the middle of the ocean, or fight against land based aircraft, launching from a carrier. UK, US, Japan could all support forward basing at the Australian bases with this model. Obviously the US and the UK have large carriers, but the RAF and USMC do support austre basing. Italian Air Force, Italian Navy F-35B jest conduct austere training on Pantelleria Island
• The F-35B could be refuelled from existing refuelling assets or the KC130J that we indicated we may wish to purchase 6 of and cannot refuel any other ADF asset other than SuperHornets. There aren't a whole lot of small, short field refuellers available for the F-35A that are in service and compatible with the existing RAAF fleet. More Hercules for RAAF? - Australian Defence Magazine
• It offers minimal compromises over the F-35. Mostly in internal fuel. But the fact it can be refuelled and operated at bases thousands of kilometres closer clearly resolves that limitation into an advantage.
• From these remote bases, 737 based assets like E7 and P8 can still be deployed.
• These remote/Austre bases, while somewhat limited, would be able to support a much higher rate of operation, of more aircraft and more capable aircraft than any carrier ever could. Australia will never be able to operate the E7, P8 or MC55A from a carrier.
• Purchasing and acquiring F-35B's would be much cheaper than upgrading every base in the region (in and out of Australia) to support F-35A operations.
• F-35B looks like getting the advanced cycle engines and further upgrades in the future.

I don't see any 6th gen fighter program particularly attractive for Australia at this stage. In fact they might all well evaporate except the US based ones.

FCAS is in all sorts of problems, as Germany is acquiring F-35's, and Spain now that Germany is acquiring F-35's, is also looking at acquiring a F-35A/F-35B acquisition. The date of entry of service for this aircraft is ballooning out to 2040 or 2050.

As perhaps an all 5th gen air force, the F-35 will still be a very capable aircraft going forward, upgrades to its engines, sensors and systems will likely keep it competitive with any "6th generation" program.

The main advantage of the proposed future 6th gen aircraft over the 5th gen appear to be twin engine.

IMO it would be worthwhile for Australia to flag an interest in the UKJ GCAP fighter. IMO the program might develop into something that may become of interest to Australia, and involves 2 large defence partners of Australia.

If it was made longer range (5000km), with a maritime strike capability, then that would be more interesting and useful to project power. Even then however, I presume the UK and Japan would still intend to operate F-35B alongside their 6th generation solution.

It all depends upon how you are going to use it. I think that the best exemplar is the USMC use of the F-35B and leveraging it's unique abilities. Another is the RAF in that they only have the B variant. Yes it's short legged compared to the other two variants but it offers more than they do. The real issue is whether or not the ADF and Australian govt see the potential that it offers the ADF and be prepared to fund it, changing long held service procedures and prejudices to operate it to its full potential. Is the ADF joint enough to do that?

 

[StingrayOZ]

The f35-b although a sophisticated aircraft is limited by range ,certainly countries can usefully deploy them from aircraft carriers and countries where airfields can quickly be attacked ,the next generation engines mentioned in this article for the F-35 do not include the b model , The cost of these engines are likely to be very expensive . It may even be possible for the development of the unmanned drones to be developed to provide a cheaper alternative from small islands
The Air Force is eyeing groundbreaking new engines for the F-35 - Sandboxx

There is development on that story.

XA100 Next Generation Adaptive Engine Could Now Power F-35B, Too

General Electric is now pitching its advanced XA100 engine for all three F-35 variants and has an eye on future aircraft programs, too.

www.thedrive.com

What we know for certain is that undisclosed F-35B operators have shared with GE the performance improvement goals that they want to see in the jet, and the company has, within the last few weeks, determined that its engine can meet them. Tweedie also noted that Rolls-Royce, responsible for the F-35B’s lift fan, was a participant in the latest study.
For the time being, XA100 remains an Air Force initiative, although there are clearly encouraging signs for GE that the Navy and Marine Corps might also want to leverage the additional performance it can offer all F-35 variants.

PW has stated it engine upgrades will be available for all types including B. GE has now said they can do all F-35 models.

The F-35B is not as limited by range as the F-35, as it can be located thousands of kilometres closer, operate from shorter and austere airfields, and be refuelled from KC-130 aircraft. It could be argued that the F-35A that is more limited in range, deployment capability and refuelling flexibility. Any forward basing of the F-35A would have to be a development and undertaking by Australia alone. Reinventing systems and aircraft for the task, costing billions and creating an orphan duplicate development.

Basing the F-35A off Christmas Island or Manus Island would cost billions in upgrades. To allow KC-30 aircraft to operate from those fields would cost tens of billions of dollars.

Unmanned drones may provide all capabilities of an air force in the future. However, it is unlikely to be acquired and FOC before 2030 by the RAAF. But certainly long term this is one aspect to be considered. However, in the drone space, and of the future 6th gen platforms, manned platforms are still being used as part of the system, drones seem to be augmenting not outright replacing manned capability. However, replacing the EA-18F growler which is a 2 seat fighter well placed to direct and manage drones may be something the F-35 in any flavour cannot replicate as a single manned plane.

It all depends upon how you are going to use it. I think that the best exemplar is the USMC use of the F-35B and leveraging it's unique abilities. Another is the RAF in that they only have the B variant. Yes it's short legged compared to the other two variants but it offers more than they do. The real issue is whether or not the ADF and Australian govt see the potential that it offers the ADF and be prepared to fund it, changing long held service procedures and prejudices to operate it to its full potential. Is the ADF joint enough to do that?

It is also less aerobatic than the the F-35A model. However, again, the F-35B can use KC-130J air refuellers, which Australia could acquire six of to give an excellent refuelling capability, greater than with the F-35A fleet. It is in fact the F-35A that is going to be shorter ranged from austere bases, island bases etc and it will be shorter ranged as it will be tied to very large airbases that can host the F-35A and the KC-30 aircraft, which exclude most to nearly all airports, air bases in the region.

A deployment of 12 x F-35B's and 2 KC130J from Curtain, Butterworth, Momote, Scherger, Learmouth or Christmas island will provide much greater coverage and capability than 24 x F-35A's and 1 x KC30 out of Tindal or even further away at Williamstown or Amberly.

I guess what I am pointing out is that there is far more to the F-35B than wacky carrier dreams. That forward deploying of fighter aircraft, that is the F-35B's domain.

The USMC has already shown, in Australia, at an Australian exercise, using Australian bare bases, how that would work, for Australia, in its own RAAF bases. It can show it can work across other bases in that Australia already has, and across the region in the Indo-Pacific.

Is the ADF joint enough? Well questions need to be asked about where we need our capability. If the Air force can't deploy to the regions it needs to, then perhaps like Land400, it should be wound back so money, time and man power can be focused where it can be. AFAIK Air Force can often be lead to a solution where more assets are acquired for the Air force. Again the compromise between F-35A and F-35B is minimal, even in terms of upgrades like engines and weapons.

Navy will already be operating in these areas and will require P8/E7 aircover and potentially fast jet air cover. On those Navy assets, Army will exist. If the LHD's aren't burdened with fixed wing operations, then moving the Army then becomes their only reason for being.

 

[Stampede]

Does a manned multi role fighter have a future for this decade and the next?
Answer - Most likely yes, that's because all of the worlds Air forces are still acquiring new manned aircraft.

Will the unmanned stuff have a future?
Answer yes - realistically this is uncharted territory where expectations and reality will be tested and adjusted to form an air domain that is at this stage very much in its infancy.

Will there be a "Sixth generation aircraft.
Answer most likely. But when that's actually achieved and more importantly rolled well that's the crucial thing for those who wish to jump on board.

In my opinion the Unmanned / sixth gen world is sufficiently in the distant future to warrant continued focus on 4th / 4.5 and 5th generation Aircraft.

The proof is in the order books of the world Air forces.

Sure everyone is going to look down the track to see whats on the horizon; but today's reality is what is flying today or scheduled to come onboard in the next few years.

In the context of the F35. "Its is reality"
Some 17 nations have signed up to the F 35
The US services alone will get over 2000 aircraft with many,many hundreds more for international customers.
No doubt with such popularity other nations will come on board for the F35 as well.

This platform exists because Air forces around the world deem that this aircraft will have relevance for decades to come.
It may well in the future team with the unmanned stuff and support sixth gen Aircraft down the track but still even then it will be a contributor to the Air domain.

For the RAAF we are very well placed with the F35 A going forward complimented with our not so old "4.5" gen Super Hornets.

The question is how long do we work with this combination?

Hold out with the Super Hornet for a Sixth gen platform.
I don't think so.

More F35's would seem the answer and probably sooner rather than later.

The next question is which variant.
More of the F35A or do we explore the attributes of a VTOL F35B.

The ADF needs to have that conversation.
Some input from those who don't have Mustaches would be prudent!



Cheers S

 

[seaspear]

This article from a former piolt states not expect the F-35 to be operating from austere bases because of the difficulties
Don’t Expect the F-35B Stealth Fighter to Fly From Austere Island Airstrips | The National Interest
Test Pilot: U.S. Marine F-35 Stealth Fighters Are Useless | The National Interest
This article went into detail of the F-35A using arrestor gear on an improvised landing strip does this then offer a alternative use for this capability without getting the F-35B
Marine Corps F-35Cs Make First Arrested Landings At An Expeditionary Airfield (thedrive.com)

 

[Julian 82]

There is development on that story.

XA100 Next Generation Adaptive Engine Could Now Power F-35B, Too

General Electric is now pitching its advanced XA100 engine for all three F-35 variants and has an eye on future aircraft programs, too.

www.thedrive.com

PW has stated it engine upgrades will be available for all types including B. GE has now said they can do all F-35 models.

The F-35B is not as limited by range as the F-35, as it can be located thousands of kilometres closer, operate from shorter and austere airfields, and be refuelled from KC-130 aircraft. It could be argued that the F-35A that is more limited in range, deployment capability and refuelling flexibility. Any forward basing of the F-35A would have to be a development and undertaking by Australia alone. Reinventing systems and aircraft for the task, costing billions and creating an orphan duplicate development.

Basing the F-35A off Christmas Island or Manus Island would cost billions in upgrades. To allow KC-30 aircraft to operate from those fields would cost tens of billions of dollars.

Unmanned drones may provide all capabilities of an air force in the future. However, it is unlikely to be acquired and FOC before 2030 by the RAAF. But certainly long term this is one aspect to be considered. However, in the drone space, and of the future 6th gen platforms, manned platforms are still being used as part of the system, drones seem to be augmenting not outright replacing manned capability. However, replacing the EA-18F growler which is a 2 seat fighter well placed to direct and manage drones may be something the F-35 in any flavour cannot replicate as a single manned plane.


It is also less aerobatic than the the F-35A model. However, again, the F-35B can use KC-130J air refuellers, which Australia could acquire six of to give an excellent refuelling capability, greater than with the F-35A fleet. It is in fact the F-35A that is going to be shorter ranged from austere bases, island bases etc and it will be shorter ranged as it will be tied to very large airbases that can host the F-35A and the KC-30 aircraft, which exclude most to nearly all airports, air bases in the region.

A deployment of 12 x F-35B's and 2 KC130J from Curtain, Butterworth, Momote, Scherger, Learmouth or Christmas island will provide much greater coverage and capability than 24 x F-35A's and 1 x KC30 out of Tindal or even further away at Williamstown or Amberly.

I guess what I am pointing out is that there is far more to the F-35B than wacky carrier dreams. That forward deploying of fighter aircraft, that is the F-35B's domain.

The USMC has already shown, in Australia, at an Australian exercise, using Australian bare bases, how that would work, for Australia, in its own RAAF bases. It can show it can work across other bases in that Australia already has, and across the region in the Indo-Pacific.

Is the ADF joint enough? Well questions need to be asked about where we need our capability. If the Air force can't deploy to the regions it needs to, then perhaps like Land400, it should be wound back so money, time and man power can be focused where it can be. AFAIK Air Force can often be lead to a solution where more assets are acquired for the Air force. Again the compromise between F-35A and F-35B is minimal, even in terms of upgrades like engines and weapons.

Navy will already be operating in these areas and will require P8/E7 aircover and potentially fast jet air cover. On those Navy assets, Army will exist. If the LHD's aren't burdened with fixed wing operations, then moving the Army then becomes their only reason for being.

Why would the F-35A not deploy from Butterworth or the northern bare bases? As I understand it, all of these bases are designed as forward operating bases for our tactical fighter force and have long runways, aprons, shelters, revetments, bunkers, accommodation facilities, fuel etc to facilitate rapid deployments. I am not sure why that justifies acquisition of an F-35B. Maybe island hopping in the pacific but you still have the issue of logistics and base security for f-35B deployments to these island locations. The F-35b still uses a hell of a lot of fuel (some 14,000 pounds). As much as a Super Hornet. It is not like a kittyhawk or hurricane in WW2 which only held 450 odd litres.

The further you get from Australia the more difficult it would become to sustain F-35B operations with sufficient fuel , spare parts and weapons. Obviously if you have an aircraft carrier, it is a lot easier as everything you need for a period of time is on the ship. For these reasons, I am a bit sceptical of the US marines using F-35Bs in distributed island operations. So far they have only demonstrated deployments of F-35Bs to aircraft carriers or fixed air bases (e.g Curtin) which a longer ranged F-35A could manage in any event.

I would add that there is a substantial difference between an A model and a B model. The B is much more expensive to purchase and maintain (it has more parts). Has significantly less performance (rated for 7G v 9 G and 450 nm combat radius v 690 nm for the A) and has the added weight penalty of a lift fan. It also cannot carry the same size and number of weapons that an A can carry. The A will carry 6 internal AAMs with sidekick upgrade whereas the B will only ever carry 4. The A can carry 2,000 pound class weapons internally (including the AARGM and the JSM) whereas the B cannot carry these weapons internally and therefore has to sacrifice its stealth to deploy these weapons.

Unless the ADF intends to reintroduce carrier aviation (which is something I would support if more funding was available) the added cost, complexity and performance penalty of the B model is not in my opinion worth its acquisition by the RAAF as a land based asset in place of additional A models.

 

[Julian 82]

Why would the F-35A not deploy from Butterworth or the northern bare bases? As I understand it, all of these bases are designed as forward operating bases for our tactical fighter force and have long runways, aprons, shelters, revetments, bunkers, accommodation facilities, fuel etc to facilitate rapid deployments. I am not sure why that justifies acquisition of an F-35B. Maybe island hopping in the pacific but you still have the issue of logistics and base security for f-35B deployments to these island locations. The F-35b still uses a hell of a lot of fuel (some 14,000 pounds). As much as a Super Hornet. It is not like a kittyhawk or hurricane in WW2 which only held 450 odd litres.

The further you get from Australia the more difficult it would become to sustain F-35B operations with sufficient fuel , spare parts and weapons. Obviously if you have an aircraft carrier, it is a lot easier as everything you need for a period of time is on the ship. For these reasons, I am a bit sceptical of the US marines using F-35Bs in distributed island operations. So far they have only demonstrated deployments of F-35Bs to aircraft carriers or fixed air bases (e.g Curtin) which a longer ranged F-35A could manage in any event.

This article from a former piolt states not expect the F-35 to be operating from austere bases because of the difficulties
Don’t Expect the F-35B Stealth Fighter to Fly From Austere Island Airstrips | The National Interest
Test Pilot: U.S. Marine F-35 Stealth Fighters Are Useless | The National Interest
This article went into detail of the F-35A using arrestor gear on an improvised landing strip does this then offer a alternative use for this capability without getting the F-35B
Marine Corps F-35Cs Make First Arrested Landings At An Expeditionary Airfield (thedrive.com)

I would add that the RAAF clearly intends to deploy F-35As to bare bases. This is why Varley manufactured these deployable containerised facilities. Homegrown tech for F-35 support delivered - Australian Defence Magazine

 

[Morgo]

A deployment of 12 x F-35B's and 2 KC130J from Curtain, Butterworth, Momote, Scherger, Learmouth or Christmas island will provide much greater coverage and capability than 24 x F-35A's and 1 x KC30 out of Tindal or even further away at Williamstown or Amberly.

I completely agree with this, and would add Cocos Is and Noumea (if we keep patching things up with the French) to your list, but….

Basing the F-35A off Christmas Island or Manus Island would cost billions in upgrades. To allow KC-30 aircraft to operate from those fields would cost tens of billions of dollars.

… not sure I agree with this. As I understand it from a quick google, both the F35A and the A330 need a c. 8k ft / 2.5km runway. This means roughly an extra 1000 ft of runway at Christmas Is, and 2000 ft at Momote. Christmas looks straightforward - there appears to be flat scrub at either end of the runway - but Momote would either need reclamation or a second runway built. I get that this is complex and expensive, but tens of billions? For reference, the entire Western Sydney Airport development - which I’d expect is an order of magnitude more complex - is $11bn.

 

[MickB]

This article from a former piolt states not expect the F-35 to be operating from austere bases because of the difficulties
Don’t Expect the F-35B Stealth Fighter to Fly From Austere Island Airstrips | The National Interest
Test Pilot: U.S. Marine F-35 Stealth Fighters Are Useless | The National Interest
This article went into detail of the F-35A using arrestor gear on an improvised landing strip does this then offer a alternative use for this capability without getting the F-35B
Marine Corps F-35Cs Make First Arrested Landings At An Expeditionary Airfield (thedrive.com)

I'm not sure as to the point of this combination of articles.
The first two basicly say fast jets cannot operate from austere airstrips because it is impossible to meet the logistical support levels required.
The later article says (my interpretation) just add in arresting gear and all the concerns raised in the first articles magically disappear.

If the sortie rate is the same would not the supply issues be the same regardless of the model of jet you use.

 

[WaveWalker]

I completely agree with this, and would add Cocos Is and Noumea (if we keep patching things up with the French) to your list, but….



… not sure I agree with this. As I understand it from a quick google, both the F35A and the A330 need a c. 8k ft / 2.5km runway. This means roughly an extra 1000 ft of runway at Christmas Is, and 2000 ft at Momote. Christmas looks straightforward - there appears to be flat scrub at either end of the runway - but Momote would either need reclamation or a second runway built. I get that this is complex and expensive, but tens of billions? For reference, the entire Western Sydney Airport development - which I’d expect is an order of magnitude more complex - is $11bn.

The cost of upgrading these runways will be more than length, (the A330 can takeoff on a relatively short runway in config 3 at a mid weight) it will be the pavement strength classification of the runways already in existence. That may require new runways.

 

[Julian 82]

The cost of upgrading these runways will be more than length, (the A330 can takeoff on a relatively short runway in config 3 at a mid weight) it will be the pavement strength classification of the runways already in existence. That may require new runways.

The F-35A could operate from the existing runways at Cocos Islands and Christmas Island. It just needs to use its after burner during take off. The lengthening of Williamtown runway was only done to allow take offs on dry thrust (for noise considerations). The KC-30s can operate from Learmonth. Again, I can’t see where we would practically use STOL in our region other than from aircraft carriers.

 

[Julian 82]

Does a manned multi role fighter have a future for this decade and the next?
Answer - Most likely yes, that's because all of the worlds Air forces are still acquiring new manned aircraft.

Will the unmanned stuff have a future?
Answer yes - realistically this is uncharted territory where expectations and reality will be tested and adjusted to form an air domain that is at this stage very much in its infancy.

Will there be a "Sixth generation aircraft.
Answer most likely. But when that's actually achieved and more importantly rolled well that's the crucial thing for those who wish to jump on board.

In my opinion the Unmanned / sixth gen world is sufficiently in the distant future to warrant continued focus on 4th / 4.5 and 5th generation Aircraft.

The proof is in the order books of the world Air forces.

Sure everyone is going to look down the track to see whats on the horizon; but today's reality is what is flying today or scheduled to come onboard in the next few years.

In the context of the F35. "Its is reality"
Some 17 nations have signed up to the F 35
The US services alone will get over 2000 aircraft with many,many hundreds more for international customers.
No doubt with such popularity other nations will come on board for the F35 as well.

This platform exists because Air forces around the world deem that this aircraft will have relevance for decades to come.
It may well in the future team with the unmanned stuff and support sixth gen Aircraft down the track but still even then it will be a contributor to the Air domain.

For the RAAF we are very well placed with the F35 A going forward complimented with our not so old "4.5" gen Super Hornets.

The question is how long do we work with this combination?

Hold out with the Super Hornet for a Sixth gen platform.
I don't think so.

More F35's would seem the answer and probably sooner rather than later.

The next question is which variant.
More of the F35A or do we explore the attributes of a VTOL F35B.

The ADF needs to have that conversation.
Some input from those who don't have Mustaches would be prudent!



Cheers S

Perhaps retention of the Super Hornet and acquisition of that 4th F-35A squadron (at least in the near term). The fighter force (like other elements of the ADF) is undersized compared to the threats we face. Anyway, not long to wait now for the outcome of the Defence Review.

 

[Wombat000]

Lots of interesting discussion on aircraft potentials.
I’m curious tho, for the thoughts on air infrastructure protection and resilience.
Not much point having awesome kit if it cannot survive it’s own basing

Curious of the Ukrainian Air Force resilience operating in a hotly contested environment, and lessons for RAAF.

 

[seaspear]

I'm not sure as to the point of this combination of articles.
The first two basicly say fast jets cannot operate from austere airstrips because it is impossible to meet the logistical support levels required.
The later article says (my interpretation) just add in arresting gear and all the concerns raised in the first articles magically disappear.

If the sortie rate is the same would not the supply issues be the same regardless of the model of jet you use.

If the argument for the purchase of the f-35b is they will be needed for austere runways, keep in mind this the U.S.M.C who operate these aircraft from their own flattops so it could be a matter of dispersal if needed ,the aircraft are not being purchased solely for a potential use on an island ,the logistics for the f35a and B are different the b more complex for an air force that has already a large number of the A models, the spare parts and trained personnel are the same ,
This article repeats again the use of the f35a model used
Air Force F-35 Stealth Fighters Are Now Operating From Guam’s Austere Airfield (thedrive.com)
The R.A.F and Italian air force has used its f35b in austere landings
F-35B Stealth Fighters: Navy & Air Force Warplanes To Be Integrated To Boost ‘Expeditionary Capabilities’ — Italy (eurasiantimes.com)

 

[MickB]

If the argument for the purchase of the f-35b is they will be needed for austere runways, keep in mind this the U.S.M.C who operate these aircraft from their own flattops so it could be a matter of dispersal if needed ,the aircraft are not being purchased solely for a potential use on an island ,the logistics for the f35a and B are different the b more complex for an air force that has already a large number of the A models, the spare parts and trained personnel are the same ,
This article repeats again the use of the f35a model used
Air Force F-35 Stealth Fighters Are Now Operating From Guam’s Austere Airfield (thedrive.com)
The R.A.F and Italian air force has used its f35b in austere landings
F-35B Stealth Fighters: Navy & Air Force Warplanes To Be Integrated To Boost ‘Expeditionary Capabilities’ — Italy (eurasiantimes.com)

So it is your assertion that when the author of the article uses words like" The fuel,bombs,bullets" and "the command and control capability ashore, the self defence forces" "are just to much for the Marines or even joint forces to sustain", what he is really saying is is the F35B is more maintaince intensive, nothing more than that.

 

[seaspear]

The conversation was about acquiring the f35-b for an ability to be deployed in support of A.D.F on locations where there are not currently facilities for conventional aircraft , there are pros and cons for this capability as articles can go into, but this is not a cheap option for the A.D.F as it is a very sophisticated platform and I believe the A.D.F should assess all the options that current and future technologies that are practicable ,and certainly the priorities of the A.D.F in the use of its budget has to be justifiable

 

[StingrayOZ]

… not sure I agree with this. As I understand it from a quick google, both the F35A and the A330 need a c. 8k ft / 2.5km runway. This means roughly an extra 1000 ft of runway at Christmas Is, and 2000 ft at Momote. Christmas looks straightforward - there appears to be flat scrub at either end of the runway - but Momote would either need reclamation or a second runway built. I get that this is complex and expensive, but tens of billions? For reference, the entire Western Sydney Airport development - which I’d expect is an order of magnitude more complex - is $11bn.

Tens of billions to upgrade all the airfields in the region. Yes. Even if its just a few hundred million for each airfield.

The F-35A isn't the only plane that would then need to operate off that airfield. The A330 base KC-30 would need to as well, otherwise you are restricted to the unrefueled range of a F-35A, which is terribly short. Particularly with afterburner take offs. Possibly with reduced fuel and weapon loadouts.

The A330 needs 2700m of runway. But also it is a 242t airplane at max load (like it would be with fuel). Many of the runways are not built for 250+T aircraft and don't have facilities for A330 sized aircraft.

Yes, you can operate perhaps, F-35 from the field without tankers, but then F-35A is pointlessly short ranged. Coordinating tankers from 6000km away is extremely suboptimal and will likely result in airframe losses of F35s in any sort of challenging conditions. There are also no secondary airfields in the region, so again, a thing like a damaged refuelling coupling, or similar minor issue would likely result in the loss of an airframe.

We spent $200m just fixing Cocos island airport to allow 737 operation from there, which involved slightly widening the airfield and slightly strengthening the runway from 60t of the P3 to 80t of the P8.. This didn't include any undercover areas or support facilities.

Cocos runway to be widened as Defence looks north - Australian Defence Magazine

Defence is moving ahead on plans to upgrade the Cocos/Keeling Islands airport to support P8-A Poseidons.

www.australiandefence.com.au

It may be impossible to expand the runway way Momote fto the 2.8km needed for the A330. It was already expanded from 1700m to 2000m as part of its upgrade.

Air power critical for Manus expansion plan | The Strategist

Only a few weeks ago, it looked as though the extent of Australia’s ambitions for Papua New Guinea’s Lombrum Naval Base, HMPNGS Tarangau, was a $5 million contribution to upgrade the wharf facility. Let’s be ...

www.aspistrategist.org.au

Chinese-built airport near Manus naval base | The Australian Naval Institute

navalinstitute.com.au

As for the cost the number thrown around is $8billion for the current spec up upgrades including Tindal. Which will now be able to operate heavy aircraft including the A330 KC-30, the B1, B2, B52

https://media.defense.gov/2021/Mar/07/2002595021/-1/-1/1/18%20DIEHL.PDF

So tens of billion seems reasonable if we will to include expanding remote and island airports to the capability to handle large aircraft, if we wish for them to be expaned in the way tindal was.

RAAF Base Tindal : Department of Defence, Australian Government

Department of Defence. Defending Australia and its national interests.

defence.gov.au

Is there really a need to operate long ranged aircraft like the KC30 or B52 from austere airfields? The issue is fighters. F-35B and KC130J can meet this capability while fitting in to our existing logistics and support networks and costing billions less.

This article repeats again the use of the f35a model used
Air Force F-35 Stealth Fighters Are Now Operating From Guam’s Austere Airfield (thedrive.com)

Not quite the same issue. These bases are quite close to existing large bases where large aircraft are based. Guam is a small island. Using an austere field on the north part of the island, within visible range Anderson air force base isn't exactly the same thing. They are concerned with the main runway being bombed out and distributing forces on other nearby austere fields. They are only <3000km from Taiwan and ~4000km from China in range of many of its missile systems. But it is an interesting example. I am sure the RAAF are looking closely. We have 72 F-35A's, so yes, at somepoint we will have to forward base them, somewhere in a similar manner.

Not exactly the same as F-35A being based off Cocos/Christmas island and performing missions out to the straits or South China Sea.

Christmas Island is ~1,300 km from Singapore. ~500km from Sunda straits. ~1000 km from Lombok.
Doable for a refuelled fighter, even ability to have patrols over this area. This would provide a politically rock solid option for Australia. It would also be a secondary base is Butterworth was ever attacked or compromised.

We already have ~72 F-35A's. I guess the question is do 24 F-35B's add significant new capabilities that enhance our existing fleet, with forward basing and allied operations. Or do we just get more of the same limited F-35A, and then struggle to refuel and operate from austere bases.

If say 48 F-35A's were based in Butterworth. Would ~18 F-35B's based out of Christmas island be a significant force multiplier. Would it be useful to have 6 F-35B and a KC130J deployed from mainland bases or at Momote be a useful capability.

Or do we forgot a 4th squadron of F-35 all together and get more P8's. Are we really interested in organic air superiority over the straits and related waters? If we are just sinking ships then the P8 would be a more capable platform.

But a P8 isn't designed to fight 4th and 5th gen fighters. Nor is it designed to take down bombers. While it has some maritime strike capability, do we have a big enough fleet to be able to cause significant damage to a Chinese task forces of ~8 heavy destroyers, 6 frigates, etc.

 

[Volkodav]

I'm not sure as to the point of this combination of articles.
The first two basicly say fast jets cannot operate from austere airstrips because it is impossible to meet the logistical support levels required.
The later article says (my interpretation) just add in arresting gear and all the concerns raised in the first articles magically disappear.

If the sortie rate is the same would not the supply issues be the same regardless of the model of jet you use.

It's called cherry picking and straw man.

You select reasonable risks that would need to be mitigated then state that they can't possibly be, effectively claiming the outcome you don't want is impossible. Then push the more risky difficult option, that you do want, supported by the mitigation without expanding on the new risks associated with the mitigation.

This is how most of the bad defence decisions of the 90s and 2000s occured. There was no appetite for major acquisitions of combat aircraft or warships, even though it was the scheduled time these projects needed to kick off.

The end result was a series of expensive and convoluted upgrades to keep existing capabilities in service longer and upgrade others to back fill for higher level capabilities that could not be extended.

All hit technical, cost and schedule issues, some had to be cancelled. Some even resulted in the acquisition of interim capabilities to fill the gap that would have just been cheaper to go with from the start as an acquisition instead of an upgrade.

I'm thinking HUG with missiles and tankers instead of replacing the F-111. Missiles and tankers were late and the F-111 became unsupportable requiring the acquisition of F/A-18F which has worked brilliantly. Logically then a larger, earlier buy of Rhino (or another type) with local industrial involvement, would have allowed HUG to be cancelled, F-111 to be retired, tankers and missiles to become less urgent, but still needed, all for less stress and less money, with greater local benefit.

Interestingly when the F-111 hit technical, cost, schedule and delivery issues during its acquisition 24 F-4Es were leased as an interim. Prior to this, Malcom Frazer, then defence minister, also announced a plan b. Cancel the F-111, buy three squadrons of F-4E (36 aircraft), one of 6 RF-4E, and one of 12 KC-135.

 

[Morgo]

Tens of billions to upgrade all the airfields in the region. Yes. Even if its just a few hundred million for each airfield.

That wasn’t the proposition though - the proposition was tens of billions to upgrade two.

EDIT: Sorry that was a bit short. The rest of your post was excellent.

Although in terms of raw combat power delivered for a given dollar spend I don’t think the F35B is value for money, I can definitely see quite some merit in the psychological impact of the uncertainty a stealth fighter with mobile basing would provide. Who would want to be a H-6 pilot under those conditions?

 

[StingrayOZ]

That wasn’t the proposition though - the proposition was tens of billions to upgrade two.

I'm not the RAAF. We can discuss various proposals and options. Perhaps I've been a bit blunt about a particular scenario and in comparisons. I am more than happy to flesh out more details ideas and proposals and conciderations.

My main aim is to shift the discussion away from B21's and carriers. There is plenty to discuss in RAAF space other than those frankly non-existent options. The B21 does not exist for commercial sale and is not FOC. The RAN does not own and operate a full sized carrier. Meanwhile the 4th squadron of F-35's is a very real possibility.

But the RAAF certainly has F-35's, and allies such as Singapore, Japan, Skorea, US and UK operate the F-35B. Spain is looking at acquiring a F-35B, but does not intend to operate it LHD as a full time carrier. Frankly just to move aircraft from from its mainland to places like the Canary Islands. Which unlike other Spanish territory, falls outside of the easy refuelling radius of fighters in a combat scenario. Japan has a similar idea in mind while ships will be able to support F-35B operations, the intention isn't to load them with 30 fighters and fly blue water operations off them, with MV-22 tankers and E2 hawkeyes. Japan has many islands. While the aircraft may land on them from time to time, they are based at Nyutabaru. The idea is to operate them from various and many Islands in the south of Japan.

Also the F-35B is separate to carrier ambitions. Singapore will never operate a carrier. However it is acquiring F-35B's.

While F-35A can be forward deployed to a place like Butterworth. It effectively ties up the entire RAAF. While I don't have the exact numbers, it is like 2 x KC30, 2 x C17's, 2 x P8's, C130J or C27J, plus however many F-35's you want to move, such as six F-35A. It is not about just jumping into a F-35A and just flying to Butterworth. Butterworth is not a bare base by any means. But support equipment, fluids, oils, machinery, computers, technicians etc. Many of these are unique to the F-35. The idea that we can replicate this capability at any base in the region is yet to be proven. You then need a significant capability to fly it back, back to Williamstown, some 7000+ km each way. That is quite a lot of flight hours airframe hours on a lot of aircraft for each rotation.

Royal Australian Air Force Deploys F-35A Lightning II Aircrafts to Malaysia - MilitaryLeak.COM

Deploying internationally for the first time since transitioning to the F-35A Lightning II, 75 Squadron has returned to its old home location at Royal

militaryleak.com

I am interested around a 6 x F-35B deployment based around a C130J and a KC130J. Which is how the USMC does it austere basing. Moving them by ship over long distances over water also frees up other escort requirements needed for a single engine fighter jet operating over open water.

The F-35A could in theory be operated much the same way. Some of the austere basing uses the KC130J as a on ground refuelling station, not as an in air refuelling station. While not as flexible, it is a real thing.

So even if the RAAF never acquires F-35B's, some of the F-35B austere concepts may be useful for the RAAF anyway. Certainly useful for discussion. USMC or UK or JP or other F-35B's may at sometime in the future, operate from Australia or nearby islands.

All of these are real and in service proposals that exist within existing budgets and manpower and could see IOC before 2030. Unlike B21/Carriers. There are impacts on other programs like tactical lift/strategic lift and maritime air capability.