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

[Takao]

Sorry, but you are wrong, completely wrong.

The project that is now known as “Additional Air Combat Capability” has gone through many many name changes.

Go back to the 2009 DWP and 2009 DCP, it clearly spelt out this project as the 4th Sqn of up to 28 F-35A.

Over the years the Defence Capability Plan (DCP) changed names too, and became the Defence Integrated Investment Plan (DIIP), by 2020 it was called the Force Structure Plan (FSP), same animal, different name.

Back in the early days of AIR 6000, Phase 2a/2b was the approved 72 aircraft, the ‘4th Sqn’ was known as Phase 2c.

Somewhere between then and now Phase 2c became Phase 7 (again, same animal, different name).


In latter years the ‘definition’ of the project became broader, stopped specifically naming the F-35A, but didn’t discard that option either.

Kinda. Historically correct, but a specific project to purchase additional F-35s was changed in 2016 DWP. We used that previous change to drive the idea that Additional Air Combat Capability was much broader in 2020 FSP. That offered AFHQ options - it could be additional crewed platforms, uncrewed platforms, weapons or radars. But specifically calling out an additional 28x F-35? That was explicitly kept out in 2020.

One more point, it can’t be confused with MQ-28A, that is a completely separate project, with a completely separate budget allocation.

In the 2020 FSP, there was the “Additional Air Combat Capability” project with a budget allocation of up to $6.7B, and separately the “Teaming Air Vehicle” project (MQ-28A) with a budget allocation of up to $11B.

Two separate projects, two separate budget allocations.

Not quite...

Originally there was a key HQ within AFHQ that was very anti-Loyal Wingman (and no, the lead of cell was not aircrew of any type). The was a deliberate campaign to restrict all funding to it. Simultaneously, there was a need to fund teaming air vehicles, but what that looks like was unknown in 2019. We assessed that LW was a fine technology demonstrator, but unlikely to match what the RAAF needed in 2030+. Add in the desire to inject flexibility to allow AFHQ to match the threat (that changed AACC above) and we had two funding streams. AACC could help fund LW into service while TAV would be used to identify and fund the LW replacement.

Noting this may have shifted in 2023, that was the broad, overall intent. There are actually significant 'chunks' of funding within the FSP20 for uncrewed platforms - simply to allow the RAAF more flexibility than the Services had been provided to date.

Here’s another question (that doesn’t appear to have an answer), what happens to the up to $6.7B that had been allocated to that project? Does it just disappear from the Defence Budget (specifically RAAF budget)?

This is an example of why I have a problem with the 2023 Albo DSR, Army projects cut, RAAF projects cut, we await the RAN review (which won’t be pretty), but we’ve just had a taste with the S-100 project being chopped.

Yes funds get reallocated, but we continue to be left in the dark where those Defence budget allocations are going.

Will they stay in Defence or end up outside of Defence? Maybe in a Green/Left looney project?

Who knows?

There is always an argument about how much of the IIP should be released for public viewing - but frankly where that specific $6.7 b goes is not really for the public to know. The quick answer is - it depends. Ultimately, Defence's budget can be changed at any point to match Government priorities - and that's fine. Its harder to do that as you get closer to the current FY, but in the past I've had to help find spare funding to transfer out in April.

Specifically, noting when it is, it's probably been rolled out into other projects. The in-year amounts for the first decade have already been provided and we are expected to meet them - so it's unlikely that it was handed back to consolidated revenue. Instead, it'll have been reallocated across other projects to (a) bring them into service earlier, (b) shift their delivery profile to allow a third capability to be delivered earlier, or (c) shifted into projects that simply don't have the cash they need.

 

[MickB]

Sorry, but you are wrong, completely wrong.

The project that is now known as “Additional Air Combat Capability” has gone through many many name changes.

Go back to the 2009 DWP and 2009 DCP, it clearly spelt out this project as the 4th Sqn of up to 28 F-35A.

Over the years the Defence Capability Plan (DCP) changed names too, and became the Defence Integrated Investment Plan (DIIP), by 2020 it was called the Force Structure Plan (FSP), same animal, different name.

Back in the early days of AIR 6000, Phase 2a/2b was the approved 72 aircraft, the ‘4th Sqn’ was known as Phase 2c.

Somewhere between then and now Phase 2c became Phase 7 (again, same animal, different name).


In latter years the ‘definition’ of the project became broader, stopped specifically naming the F-35A, but didn’t discard that option either.

One more point, it can’t be confused with MQ-28A, that is a completely separate project, with a completely separate budget allocation.

In the 2020 FSP, there was the “Additional Air Combat Capability” project with a budget allocation of up to $6.7B, and separately the “Teaming Air Vehicle” project (MQ-28A) with a budget allocation of up to $11B.

Two separate projects, two separate budget allocations.

Can it be any clearer than that?


I don’t have a problem with the Super Hornet fleet continuing on for the next decade or so, especially since they are our only aircraft capable of launching AShM (currently Harpoon), and eventually LRASM and JASSM-ER (F-35A won’t be able to use those weapons until Block 4).


But here’s the problem....

The ALP Government has quietly ditched the ‘Additional Air Combat Capability’ project, without actually announcing it, that was left to one of the RAAF Senior Sirs:

Australia Starts Looking Beyond The F-35 For Next-Gen Fighter Needs | Aviation Week Network

Next-generation fighters will be available when Australia searches for a replacement for a squadron of Boeing F/A-18E/Fs in the mid-2030s.

aviationweek.com

Here’s another question (that doesn’t appear to have an answer), what happens to the up to $6.7B that had been allocated to that project? Does it just disappear from the Defence Budget (specifically RAAF budget)?


This is an example of why I have a problem with the 2023 Albo DSR, Army projects cut, RAAF projects cut, we await the RAN review (which won’t be pretty), but we’ve just had a taste with the S-100 project being chopped.


Yes funds get reallocated, but we continue to be left in the dark where those Defence budget allocations are going.

Will they stay in Defence or end up outside of Defence? Maybe in a Green/Left looney project?

Who knows?

Do you not think that by changing the name of a project they may have in some degree have changed the intent of that project.
After all it was never named the program to "buy F35s and nothing but F35s project".

Going back through the history of the ADF you will see many projects that did not eventuate, that happens get over it.

Looney project? Afraid to ask wot you mean by this, because you might actually tell me me.

Sorry if I come across rude , drinking while typing.

 

[Maranoa]

I think this brings them in line with the RNZAF P-8s. FWIU the RNZAF P-8s are the latest iteration and they will be replaced as such by the next order for whatever country, bar India. The RNZAF P-8A is stock standard. The Pom ones are pretty new too but AKAIK they have some Pom specific modifications. IIRC the P-8 is a spiral upgrade capability.

No, the budget papers listed approved funding for RAAF P-8A Poseidon Increment III Block I upgrade under Project Air 7000 Phase II which is still not been fully finalised. It requires a retrofit Increment III Block I A Kit installation as well as the latest Fleet Release (95?) software package which was actually authorised by the previous Morrison Govt in 2019. If memory serves me correctly, the RNZAF P-8As are Increment II late ECP configuration with Fleet Release 75 or 85 software from Boeing information releases.

 

[Mikeymike]

Does anyone know if Australia has in the past considered/practiced operating fast jets off roadways as a way of dispersal. I know that in the past they have operated some of the smaller cargo planes like C27 off roads/unprepared runways but not fast jets.

Norway is showing that it can be done with the F35A, though its unclear if this is possible due to the additional drogue chute their F35s have - Link

 

[Rob c]

Norway is showing that it can be done with the F35A, though its unclear if this is possible due to the additional drogue chute their F35s have - Link

While drogue chutes will shorten the landing run. the biggest benefit is a significant reduction in tyre and brake wear. I remember back in the mid 1970's being on an exercise Vanguard when we could not use drogue chutes the tyre and break wear went from a normal around 70 landings per tyre and over 200 per brake set to 5 to 12 per tyre and 30 to 45 per break set.

 

[Todjaeger]

Does anyone know if Australia has in the past considered/practiced operating fast jets off roadways as a way of dispersal. I know that in the past they have operated some of the smaller cargo planes like C27 off roads/unprepared runways but not fast jets.

Norway is showing that it can be done with the F35A, though its unclear if this is possible due to the additional drogue chute their F35s have - Link

A question I would have is where would the RAAF possibly operate fast jets from roadways? If one were to consider doing so in portions of the Far North as an alternative to operating from 'bare' bases, and/or doing so because the 'bare' bases have either been neutralized or are threated with becoming so, would there be sufficient roadways as well as access to fuel supplies in order for fast jets to operate? With regards to roadways, would the road surface and base course be able to handle the weight of a loaded RAAF fighter? An area I would be concerned about would be the potential ground pressure a loaded F-35A might have. Also, what potential would there be for FOD?

 

[Bob53]

A question I would have is where would the RAAF possibly operate fast jets from roadways? If one were to consider doing so in portions of the Far North as an alternative to operating from 'bare' bases, and/or doing so because the 'bare' bases have either been neutralized or are threated with becoming so, would there be sufficient roadways as well as access to fuel supplies in order for fast jets to operate? With regards to roadways, would the road surface and base course be able to handle the weight of a loaded RAAF fighter? An area I would be concerned about would be the potential ground pressure a loaded F-35A might have. Also, what potential would there be for FOD?

Weight wise all main northern highway are built to take weights roughly of 20+ Ton per axle. Think road trains and heavy mining equipment shifts. There is certainly exceptions but I don’t think there would be any shortage of suitable road sections. I don’t think a F35, F18 or herc would be any issue in the main remembering the roads are typically 9-12m wide so the pilot would need to well aligned on landing. From what I have seen globally road landings tend to be on specifically prepared sections that look to be wider or have wider shoulders.

 

[Redlands18]

A question I would have is where would the RAAF possibly operate fast jets from roadways? If one were to consider doing so in portions of the Far North as an alternative to operating from 'bare' bases, and/or doing so because the 'bare' bases have either been neutralized or are threated with becoming so, would there be sufficient roadways as well as access to fuel supplies in order for fast jets to operate? With regards to roadways, would the road surface and base course be able to handle the weight of a loaded RAAF fighter? An area I would be concerned about would be the potential ground pressure a loaded F-35A might have. Also, what potential would there be for FOD?

I think when they talk about operating them off roadways, they are talking about multi lane Freeways, there are plenty of those in the Brisbane-Melbourne corridor but not a lot outside of that

 

[Todjaeger]

Weight wise all main northern highway are built to take weights roughly of 20+ Ton per axle. Think road trains and heavy mining equipment shifts. There is certainly exceptions but I don’t think there would be any shortage of suitable road sections. I don’t think a F35, F18 or herc would be any issue in the main remembering the roads are typically 9-12m wide so the pilot would need to well aligned on landing. From what I have seen globally road landings tend to be on specifically prepared sections that look to be wider or have wider shoulders.

I am aware of the road trains, but what I have not been able to find out is how the ground pressure exerted by a road train compares with the ground pressure exerted by a loaded F-35. A MTOW F-35A is going to be ~30 tonnes, with the weight distributed across the wheels which might have less surface area than the wheels per axle of a road train, in which case there would be a higher exerted ground pressure. If that is the case, then an F-35 attempting to take off or land could tear up the road surface, not unlike happened initially with the A380. BTW there is no question that F-35A fighters can land & take off from roadways, as the RNoAF has already demonstrated doing so on an exercise in Finland very recently.

I think when they talk about operating them off roadways, they are talking about multi lane Freeways, there are plenty of those in the Brisbane-Melbourne corridor but not a lot outside of that

Which then begs the question, if the RAAF is forced to operating from roadways in a VIC-NSW-QLD corridor which is also one of the most populated parts of the country, and not operating from RAAF bases or even civilian airports in the region, what sort of state is the RAAF fast jet fleet likely going to be in? For Sweden and Finland, much smaller countries which had potentially hostile nations nearby and certain within strike range of aircraft operating from bases in those countries, distributed air ops from roadways made sense. With Australia being the size it is, as well as being so far from most nations which could launch long-ranged strikes, it does not make as much sense to me.

If the ability was such that Australia could rapidly switch to roadway ops in remote areas which lack much of the aviation infrastructure needed for normal ops, then it might make sense. OTOH though, it is possible that the road and particularly fuel infrastructure link in areas where it might be useful could also be insufficient for the aircraft the RAAF might wish to operate.

 

[south]

There are a few factors at play with considering if a runway surface is going to be suitable.

Regarding ground pressure - Todjaeger is talking about ACN/PCN. Secondly, even though the road may have appropriate ACN/PCN, is it smooth enough (tolerance generally 1/4” over 5m). Unless a road is specifically designed (and manufactured), it’s unlikely to be close to these qualities - particularly in the far NW!

Lastly - is this a problem looking for a solution? If we imagine dispersed ops around NW Western Australia (which is about as remote as anywhere) as an example - why wouldn’t I use a civilian runway rather than a road? Suitable strips would likely include:

Kunnunnurra
Karratha
Broome
Lake Argyle
Koolan Island
Port Hedland
Fortescue Dave Forrest

 

[Pusser01]

There are a few factors at play with considering if a runway surface is going to be suitable.

Regarding ground pressure - Todjaeger is talking about ACN/PCN. Secondly, even though the road may have appropriate ACN/PCN, is it smooth enough (tolerance generally 1/4” over 5m). Unless a road is specifically designed (and manufactured), it’s unlikely to be close to these qualities - particularly in the far NW!

Lastly - is this a problem looking for a solution? If we imagine dispersed ops around NW Western Australia (which is about as remote as anywhere) as an example - why wouldn’t I use a civilian runway rather than a road? Suitable strips would likely include:

Kunnunnurra
Karratha
Broome
Lake Argyle
Koolan Island
Port Hedland
Fortescue Dave Forrest

Potentially could add Truscott, Gove & Groote Eylandt to that list. For something really left field, the old Coruuna Downs Airfield could be looked at. It would need a bit of work to get it back up to a reasonable standard though. Corunna Downs Airfield | Australia's North West (australiasnorthwest.com)

 

[Pusser01]

I think when they talk about operating them off roadways, they are talking about multi lane Freeways, there are plenty of those in the Brisbane-Melbourne corridor but not a lot outside of that

Possibly a section of the Stuart Highway through Humpty Doo could be modified.

 

[Mikeymike]

A question I would have is where would the RAAF possibly operate fast jets from roadways? If one were to consider doing so in portions of the Far North as an alternative to operating from 'bare' bases, and/or doing so because the 'bare' bases have either been neutralized or are threated with becoming so, would there be sufficient roadways as well as access to fuel supplies in order for fast jets to operate? With regards to roadways, would the road surface and base course be able to handle the weight of a loaded RAAF fighter? An area I would be concerned about would be the potential ground pressure a loaded F-35A might have. Also, what potential would there be for FOD?

All good questions, I was thinking more of is it better value for money to practice/prepare to disperse to roadways than hardening the bases as outlined in the DSR, though you could add dispersal to civilian runways as another option. During a war the RAAF would disperse to the bare bases but these are still a long way from anywhere and cratering the runway/hangars of any of these could hinder sorties for a significant portion of the northern approaches.

Would spending some money on preparing a number of different sites across the regions be worth it? I was thinking for example ensuring that they have the required road strength, are able to be setup and running quickly, potentially building apron-ways etc similar to how Sweden and Finland pre-prepare sections of roadway for this

 

[Redlands18]

Possibly a section of the Stuart Highway through Humpty Doo could be modified.

Why not just spend the money on Sandford Airstrip?

 

[south]

Potentially could add Truscott, Gove & Groote Eylandt to that list. For something really left field, the old Coruuna Downs Airfield could be looked at. It would need a bit of work to get it back up to a reasonable standard though. Corunna Downs Airfield | Australia's North West (australiasnorthwest.com)

This is true, although I removed Truscott as it’s less than 6000ft (just) and the other two (Gove/Groote) are in the NT (I only looked across NW-WA). There are a few others available in NT and QLD as well.

Would spending some money on preparing a number of different sites across the regions be worth it? I was thinking for example ensuring that they have the required road strength, are able to be setup and running quickly, potentially building apron-ways etc similar to how Sweden and Finland pre-prepare sections of roadway for this

As discussed there’s plenty of other sites albeit with limited parking space available. Is it worth putting money down? I guess that depends on a risk assessment and financials available. You’d need to be balancing cash available (of which there currently appears to be zero), amongst other options such as hardening bare base infrastructure and other redundancy/resilience improvements.

If an idea to improve some dispersal options were to be pursued, I would consider extending the main runways at both Weipa and Derby airports and improve parking spaces. In this way your satellite/dispersal field is very close to the MOBs; the logistic churn of packing up all of the support equipment and moving 500km is not insignificant. Noting this is all before you take into consideration refuel/weapons and other requirements.

Lastly, does Northern Australia have enough logistical flexibility to be shutting down highways and turning them into airstrips?

 

[ASSAIL]

This is true, although I removed Truscott as it’s less than 6000ft (just) and the other two (Gove/Groote) are in the NT (I only looked across NW-WA). There are a few others available in NT and QLD as well.



As discussed there’s plenty of other sites albeit with limited parking space available. Is it worth putting money down? I guess that depends on a risk assessment and financials available. You’d need to be balancing cash available (of which there currently appears to be zero), amongst other options such as hardening bare base infrastructure and other redundancy/resilience improvements.

If an idea to improve some dispersal options were to be pursued, I would consider extending the main runways at both Weipa and Derby airports and improve parking spaces. In this way your satellite/dispersal field is very close to the MOBs; the logistic churn of packing up all of the support equipment and moving 500km is not insignificant. Noting this is all before you take into consideration refuel/weapons and other requirements.

Lastly, does Northern Australia have enough logistical flexibility to be shutting down highways and turning them into airstrips?

There are numerous opportunities to use the highways for runways, miles of flat straight stretches on all the major roads and it’s not difficult to close them off as happens many times when the roads are upgraded.
Simply grade a bypass in the dirt next to the roads and keep going.
The Port Augusta - Darwin railway is a great strategic asset adding to that logistic flexibility.

 

[Volkodav]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but dont runways need to be flat and roads need to be cambered to ensure water runs off?

There are concrete roads that appear to be flat, but the ones I've seen have lengthways parallel lines textured on their surface, I assume to disapate water.

Country roads tend to be spayed ashfalt on-top of the base structure, while major roads, closer to cites are layered bitumen over the substructure.

I imagine anything we want to operate our aircraft from would have to be better engineered than to average Aussie bush road. Putting that extra investment in, and then increasing the maintenance bill by letting B-triples and road trains wreck them, it may just make more sense (and be better value for money) to build proper strips at logistics hubs.

Civil ops most the year round, available for disaster relief in regards to floods fires etc. medivacs. Available to the ADF for exercises.

 

[phreeky]

All this talk of using roads, wouldn't you just use civil aviation facilities if things get that desparate?

There are lots of regional aerodromes of various sizes, some of which will already contain a suitable runway and taxiways and others that would be easier to upgrade than trying to use roads. No they don't contain all of the other facilities that you'd want, but already more than a road in the middle of nowhere.

 

[vonnoobie]

Definitely much better off using existing runways even if needing upgrades. They are a dime in a dozen across Australia especially Northern and Western Australia for remote communities and mining FOFO operations. Would make more fiscal sense using existing assets even if requiring upgrades/expansion as the existing operations would subsidize (not necessarily eliminate) the upkeep.

 

[ASSAIL]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but dont runways need to be flat and roads need to be cambered to ensure water runs off?

There are concrete roads that appear to be flat, but the ones I've seen have lengthways parallel lines textured on their surface, I assume to disapate water.

Country roads tend to be spayed ashfalt on-top of the base structure, while major roads, closer to cites are layered bitumen over the substructure.

I imagine anything we want to operate our aircraft from would have to be better engineered than to average Aussie bush road. Putting that extra investment in, and then increasing the maintenance bill by letting B-triples and road trains wreck them, it may just make more sense (and be better value for money) to build proper strips at logistics hubs.

Civil ops most the year round, available for disaster relief in regards to floods fires etc. medivacs. Available to the ADF for exercises.

Not saying the roads are airfield quality but some of the highways are already marked as runways for use by jets belonging to the RFDS (flying doctor)