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

[John Newman]

Love to know the experts thoughts on such a platform. While I understand it’s not stealth it would be still a flexible platform and cheap to run aircraft for long range strike and armed over watch in the pacific and northern approaches.

A neutered P-8A? Waste of time and effort. Why not just procure ex commercial 737-800 airframes and modify?

Or.....

A better solution for a long range platform for delivering long range weapons such as LRASM, JASSM-ER, and future long range Hypersonic missiles, would be an MQ-28 Ghost Bat.

The current standard MQ-28A probably doesn’t have the range or payload capacity for long range strike, it would probably require a larger airframe, let’s call it a B, or even a C model.

I would reasonably imagine the most expensive part of the MQ-28 development program is the AI and other sensors, not the actual airframe.

Once the AI and other sensors are developed, proven and stable, it should be relatively simple to ‘transplant’ them into an enlarged airframe.

Anyway, just my opinion of course.

 

[Tbone]

Thanks John, the reason behind bringing up a bomber version of the P-8 was that it could carry long range weapons and drones in swarms and has an amazing range and loitering time. Could be a command post for other drones as well. And the most important part it is already flying as a P-8 not a dream. Did you read the article?

 

[Todjaeger]

Thanks John, the reason behind bringing up a bomber version of the P-8 was that it could carry long range weapons and drones in swarms and has an amazing range and loitering time. Could be a command post for other drones as well. And the most important part it is already flying as a P-8 not a dream. Did you read the article?

I read through part of the article in detail, and then abruptly lost interest. TBH it strikes me as the work of an enthusiast which knows something about combat aircraft and hit upon what they see as a solution to a potential problem all whilst not seeing much of the overall 'big picture'.

The article even made reference to the Rapid Dragon palletized weapons systems, but seems to think that developing a specialized bomb-truck variant of the P-8 makes more sense.

Frankly, some of the ideas raised reminded me of APA. One example given from the article was the idea of kitting out the RB-8 with fighter AESA and air-to-air missiles for some self-defence capability, or even carrying extreme-ranged BVR air-to-air missiles to enable the RB-8 to engage hostile air.

The author also apparently seems to believe that it would not be a significant issue to change, expand or increase the Poseidon bomb bay and/or fit mechanisms into the bomb bay to dispense certain types of ordnance. That or the author feels that developing a new long-ranged bomber to launch stand off ordnance with a range of ~40 miles is a good use of resources.

If the entire idea of the article is to enable the USAF to be able to increase the long/extreme-ranged strike capability, then the notion of the RB-8 IMO is an utter failure of an idea. The basic P-8 Poseidon airframe has IIRC four external hardpoints suitable to fit larger standoff ordnance like the AGM-158C LRASM, but could potentially also carry one of the other AGM-158 JASSM variants. If the per aircraft cost the author seems to theorize at USD$130 mil. is accurate, then the US would be getting a strike aircraft capable of launching only four such munitions per sorties for that cost. Otherwise the interior and bomb bay would need to get significantly redesigned and then significant testing done in order for more such long-range stand off munitions to be fitted and used.

As it stands now, the aircraft the author seems to suggest as being a viable idea would be in competition to US military airlifters like the C-130 and C-17 loaded with Rapid Dragon pallets. Given that a single C-130 could release a dozen JASSM on a mission using Rapid Dragon, or a C-17 could release up to 45, the idea of spending north of USD$130 mil. and getting only four more inbounds per sortie does not sound like a worthwhile venture.

 

[hauritz]

Thanks John, the reason behind bringing up a bomber version of the P-8 was that it could carry long range weapons and drones in swarms and has an amazing range and loitering time. Could be a command post for other drones as well. And the most important part it is already flying as a P-8 not a dream. Did you read the article?

Just how much cheaper would a stripped down version of the P-8 really be? The article does talk about only including the bare essentials without actually telling us what those bare essentuals would be.

The P-8 is already a multi-mission patrol aircraft.

• anti-submarine warfare
• anti-surface warfare
• search and rescue
• maritime intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance
• overland intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance.

Most of the sytems on the aircraft support "ALL" of these missions. This only thing I could identify that seems to be mission specific is the sonobuoy deployment system. That might shave off some weight and cost but frankly I would rather keep them. I actually don't believe that you could strip much out of the P-8 and still have a viable combat capability.

 

[Todjaeger]

Just how much cheaper would a stripped down version of the P-8 really be? The article does talk about only including the bare essentials without actually telling us what those bare essentuals would be.

The P-8 is already a multi-mission patrol aircraft.

• anti-submarine warfare
• anti-surface warfare
• search and rescue
• maritime intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance
• overland intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance.

Most of the sytems on the aircraft support "ALL" of these missions. This only thing I could identify that seems to be mission specific is the sonobuoy deployment system. That might shave off some weight and cost but frankly I would rather keep them. I actually don't believe that you could strip much out of the P-8 and still have a viable combat capability.

The article did make reference to cargo planes and weapons pallets, so it would seem the author was aware of Rapid Dragon. I suspect that the acoustic processors fitted aboard a P-8 Poseidon could be removed, as well as any MAD but I am uncertain just how much space/weight that would save. IIRC the workstations fitted aboard the Poseidon are multi-function, so that users can switch between which systems individual workstations are monitoring. Not sure that removing the sonobuoy deployment system would happen, if the build was done as the author suggests, since that system is also used to release small drones in flight.

However, the author also wrote the following;

There could be additional orders for a P-8 derivative, possibly from the Army, in the not-so-distant future, as well.

Now I followed the embedded link to another TWZ article on a US Army ISR aircraft programme, which does list the P-8 Poseidon or a variant as being a potential candidate. IIRC the current platform in use by the US Army is based around contractor owned/operated modified Bombardier Challenger 650 jets. As a practical matter, I just do not foresee the USAF standing by and letting US Army Aviation start operating platforms the size of, or based upon B737's or anything larger. From an operational standpoint, there would likely be a number of problems if the US Army were to try and operate something based off the B737, which is quite a bit larger than even the largest business jets operated by Army Aviation. One question which immediately came to mind is just how many Army Aviation facilities are large enough for a B737-sized jet to operate from in anything other than an emergency capacity.

 

[Bob53]

Does anyone know where Australia FA18s are currently stored? They were at Guam for a while but the sale to the private adversary group apparently fell through.

 

[hauritz]

There were rumours that they were offered to and rejected by Ukraine. I am guessing Canada cherry picked the best of them. Last I heard, apart from a few preserved examples kept in Australia, the remaining aircraft are rusting away in Guam.

Australia dumps old fighter jets to rust in the middle of the Pacific

Australia has left multi-million dollar jet fighters to rust in the middle of Pacific with a top defence expert saying they are now too old and rusted to be any use, even for Ukrainians fighting off the Russians.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Have you ever wondered how Australia’s legacy hornets would have fared against the Russians?

 

[Volkodav]

There were rumours that they were offered to and rejected by Ukraine. I am guessing Canada cherry picked the best of them. Last I heard, apart from a few preserved examples kept in Australia, the remaining aircraft are rusting away in Guam.

Australia dumps old fighter jets to rust in the middle of the Pacific

Australia has left multi-million dollar jet fighters to rust in the middle of Pacific with a top defence expert saying they are now too old and rusted to be any use, even for Ukrainians fighting off the Russians.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Have you ever wondered how Australia’s legacy hornets would have fared against the Russians?

Interesting and sort of backs up Beazleys inclination to supplement or replace the Legacy Hornet much earlier than we did.

This didn't happen because of the perceived peace dividend let successive governments ignore the fact the F/A-18A/B were outmatched from the mid to late 90s.

If I recall correctly Beazley suggested a couple of squadrons of F-22As acquired in the late 90s early 2000s would permit the remaining Hornets and F-111 to remain viable until 2010. He then suggested Typhoon as an interim before Nelson finally pushed the Rhinos past the bean counters.

They don't get the publicity that the RAN gets, but the Legacy Hornets and F-111 fleets were older and just as hard worked as the RAN front line capabilities. Upgraded, old platforms forced to soldier on much longer than they should have.

 

[Bob53]

There were rumours that they were offered to and rejected by Ukraine. I am guessing Canada cherry picked the best of them. Last I heard, apart from a few preserved examples kept in Australia, the remaining aircraft are rusting away in Guam.

Australia dumps old fighter jets to rust in the middle of the Pacific

Australia has left multi-million dollar jet fighters to rust in the middle of Pacific with a top defence expert saying they are now too old and rusted to be any use, even for Ukrainians fighting off the Russians.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Have you ever wondered how Australia’s legacy hornets would have fared against the Russians?

The reason I asked is that I recall seeing something about them being stored away in Guam Awaiting a sale but the latest I could find is They are in a hangar At Williamstown. Retired RAAF fighter jets could be sent to Ukraine

The AFR link is paywalled. Here are relevant snippets:
"Australia, the US and Ukraine are discussing sending 41 Royal Australian Air Force F/A-18 Hornets to Kyiv.

The retired F/A-18s are sitting in a hangar at the Williamtown RAAF base outside Newcastle and unless sent to Ukraine, will either be scrapped or sold to a private sector aviation company.

Robert Potter, an Australian security expert advising the Ukrainian government, confirmed negotiations were underway, but a specific deal is yet to be finalised.

“However, the United States and Ukraine have an active and specific interest in the acquisition of fourth generation fighters for the Ukrainian Air Force,” he said.

“Australia operates a large stockpile of retired planes which are otherwise scheduled for destruction. There are multiple formal approvals required to conclude a procurement of these planes, but it is likely an idea whose time has come.”

A separate source close to the discussions agreed it made no sense to destroy perfectly good aircraft that he said could be operational within four months and used to help repel the Russian invasion.

While a handful of planes would only be good for cannibalising parts, the vast bulk would take little work to be brought up to flying condition and have a couple of years left on their airframes. The Australian Hornets are in good shape because they didn’t operate at se

 

[hauritz]

Interesting and sort of backs up Beazleys inclination to supplement or replace the Legacy Hornet much earlier than we did.

This didn't happen because of the perceived peace dividend let successive governments ignore the fact the F/A-18A/B were outmatched from the mid to late 90s.

If I recall correctly Beazley suggested a couple of squadrons of F-22As acquired in the late 90s early 2000s would permit the remaining Hornets and F-111 to remain viable until 2010. He then suggested Typhoon as an interim before Nelson finally pushed the Rhinos past the bean counters.

They don't get the publicity that the RAN gets, but the Legacy Hornets and F-111 fleets were older and just as hard worked as the RAN front line capabilities. Upgraded, old platforms forced to soldier on much longer than they should have.

It was a simulation of course but it does make you wonder whether or not good old fashioned speed, maneuverability, climb and acceleration rates are as relevant now as they ever were. Also the ability to fly low. Low flying drones have also been fairly effective against Russian defences.

 

[StingrayOZ]

If I recall correctly Beazley suggested a couple of squadrons of F-22As acquired in the late 90s early 2000s would permit the remaining Hornets and F-111 to remain viable until 2010. He then suggested Typhoon as an interim before Nelson finally pushed the Rhinos past the bean counters.

If we had 2 F-22 squadrons, we could have sold them back to the US at a tidy profit. They are desperate for airframes and parts.

Superhornets are a god send. LRASM, now SM-6.. EW capabilities. And the F-35 can't fire either of those and the upgrade program and block IV is still going to be problematic and time and money and parts. Without them we would have pretty limited naval strike capability from fighters.

IMO typhoon while nice, is a bit of technical dead end. Block III superhornets keep them very relevant going forward. 72 F-35 is still a useful number of F-35as. Parts are widely available, many whole airframes in bone yards. It works well for Australia.

 

[Volkodav]

O

If we had 2 F-22 squadrons, we could have sold them back to the US at a tidy profit. They are desperate for airframes and parts.

Superhornets are a god send. LRASM, now SM-6.. EW capabilities. And the F-35 can't fire either of those and the upgrade program and block IV is still going to be problematic and time and money and parts. Without them we would have pretty limited naval strike capability from fighters.

IMO typhoon while nice, is a bit of technical dead end. Block III superhornets keep them very relevant going forward. 72 F-35 is still a useful number of F-35as. Parts are widely available, many whole airframes in bone yards. It works well for Australia.

Typhoon is only an issue if it is kept in service for 40 years and not supplemented by anything else.

While I understand the benefits of standardizing on a single type, just like the rest of the ADF is experiencing, you get into trouble if you keep life extending and keeping them in service forever.

We could have easily and affordably acquired another type in the late 90s and been looking for a replacement now.

Here's a simple senerio, just build batches of 6 F/A-18s a year switching to C/D, then E/F, then block II etc. no HUG, not centre barrel replacement, no F-111G. Replace the fleet as we go, then do the same with F-35 or whatever.

 

[Todjaeger]

Interesting and sort of backs up Beazleys inclination to supplement or replace the Legacy Hornet much earlier than we did.

This didn't happen because of the perceived peace dividend let successive governments ignore the fact the F/A-18A/B were outmatched from the mid to late 90s.

If I recall correctly Beazley suggested a couple of squadrons of F-22As acquired in the late 90s early 2000s would permit the remaining Hornets and F-111 to remain viable until 2010. He then suggested Typhoon as an interim before Nelson finally pushed the Rhinos past the bean counters.

They don't get the publicity that the RAN gets, but the Legacy Hornets and F-111 fleets were older and just as hard worked as the RAN front line capabilities. Upgraded, old platforms forced to soldier on much longer than they should have.

He may have suggested that Australia acquire F-22's, but the reality was (and remains) this was not possible. Since FY1998, there has been a prohibition in place on exporting the F-22 Raptor. At this time, the F-22 was still in a testing and development regime and had not entered normal production, never mind actual service. IIRC it was towards the end of 2002 that the first production aircraft to Edwards AFB for initial operational testing and evaluation. In other words, the F-22 as an aircraft in production did not exist in the 90's so there was nothing Australia could have done to purchase them. By the time the design was finalized and in production, the export ban had been in place for several years.

 

[swerve]

IMO typhoon while nice, is a bit of technical dead end.

Interesting. Can you expand on that?

 

[Todjaeger]

Interesting. Can you expand on that?

I suspect it might be a commentary on some of the capabilities the Typhoon does not have, with LO being perhaps most important. Both the Typhoon and Raptor has their origins in air superiority fighter development programmes from the early 1980's during the Cold War and both designs would not enter actual service until the early 2000's with Typhoon in 2003 and Raptor in 2005.

Despite the two designs both having been come from the same period, one is effectively a 4.5 gen fighter whilst the other is 5th gen. Yes, the Typhoon design did include some work to reduce the RCS, but the design itself limits what could be done to some degree. Yes, the avionics can continue to be improved and upgraded (as can those aboard Raptors) but not much can be done to improve all aspect signature management.

In a modern battlespace where the party which detects the other first will have advantage, and where there are offboard and networked sensors, then all aspect LO can have significant importance.

 

[swerve]

Can't disagree with any of that, but perhaps I should have also quoted what immediately followed: "Block III superhornets keep them very relevant going forward."

 

[Todjaeger]

Can't disagree with any of that, but perhaps I should have also quoted what immediately followed: "Block III superhornets keep them very relevant going forward."

True, though from my perspective the when/where and how the types will continue being used will be a bit different, even though both the Typhoon and SHornet also came out very close to each other in time.

The SHornet really is what the Hornet should have been, several decades later. One thing which was quickly realized very early on with the early F/A-18A/B Hornets is that it was a bit too short-legged and IIRC there were some design proposals submitted to change/improve the basic Hornet design prior to serial production, to increase the onboard fuel load and range. I believe it was time and cost issues which led to such improvements not being adopted. Where things get a bit different is that the main users of the SHornet now have a newer, also multi-role fighter design in frontline service so the user services have options in terms of which fighter type will sortie depending on forces available and mission needs.

Unfort for the Typhoon users, there is no newer type in service for the primary or original role, with upgrades and changes made to make the Typhoon into a more multi-role capable fighter. This means that for missions where LO would be a major advantage, the Typhoon is still all that is available for now.

 

[Volkodav]

He may have suggested that Australia acquire F-22's, but the reality was (and remains) this was not possible. Since FY1998, there has been a prohibition in place on exporting the F-22 Raptor. At this time, the F-22 was still in a testing and development regime and had not entered normal production, never mind actual service. IIRC it was towards the end of 2002 that the first production aircraft to Edwards AFB for initial operational testing and evaluation. In other words, the F-22 as an aircraft in production did not exist in the 90's so there was nothing Australia could have done to purchase them. By the time the design was finalized and in production, the export ban had been in place for several years.

Beazleys initial proposal was before the restriction came in. It was either when the F-22 was selected over the F-23 or when the F-22A had its first flight.

Following that, when he was opposition leader, he suggested a later Tranche Typhoon.

His thinking was that it was not sensible to be totally reliant of two aging types going into a new century.

 

[swerve]

The UK & Italy both have F-35, albeit all F-35B for the UK. Germany's getting some F-35A, though a limited number for the nuclear role, & the Spanish navy would love some F-35B.

So some of them have the LO - though in a form which isn't necessarily as good for all Typhoon roles.

Interesting that both the users of F-35 & Typhoon have got together (with Japan) on a project for an LO fighter which apppears to have more of an air to air emphasis than F-35 - though still multirole.

A bit off-topic, but one bit of IHI's sales went up 132% last year - military engines. I had a little job today, proofreading the translation into English of a statement by the CEO, in which that was mentioned. The increase seems to have been largely R&D contracts.

 

[Volkodav]

True, though from my perspective the when/where and how the types will continue being used will be a bit different, even though both the Typhoon and SHornet also came out very close to each other in time.

The SHornet really is what the Hornet should have been, several decades later. One thing which was quickly realized very early on with the early F/A-18A/B Hornets is that it was a bit too short-legged and IIRC there were some design proposals submitted to change/improve the basic Hornet design prior to serial production, to increase the onboard fuel load and range. I believe it was time and cost issues which led to such improvements not being adopted. Where things get a bit different is that the main users of the SHornet now have a newer, also multi-role fighter design in frontline service so the user services have options in terms of which fighter type will sortie depending on forces available and mission needs.

Unfort for the Typhoon users, there is no newer type in service for the primary or original role, with upgrades and changes made to make the Typhoon into a more multi-role capable fighter. This means that for missions where LO would be a major advantage, the Typhoon is still all that is available for now.

Beazley has always looked at the big picture, including life cycles and understood that you always needed to look to the future.

The F/A-18 was great in the 80s, very effective in the 90s, but approaching obsolescence in the 2000s. Two decades is a good service life, three is pushing it, heading to four is ridiculous. By the late 90s the RAAF had exercised with Malaysia's new F/A-18Ds and MIG-29s and knew their Hornets were no longer the best in the region.

It's supplement / replacement should have been underway in the late 90s, and the replacement for that type underway in the 2010s.

In an ideal world we would now be roughly where we are, but without HUG, centre barrel, AUP, or F-111G. Rather we would have bought or built new aircraft, and sold our old.