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

[StingrayOZ]

Interesting. Can you expand on that?

The typhoon is a very capable aircraft, no doubt about it. However it design priorities and integration priorities aren't and ideal multirole fit for Australia and its geographic and its geopolitical situation.

Early trache aircraft were very focused around air defence only as I understand it.
UK confirms plans to strip early Typhoon jets for parts

I am not an expert, but it would seem that things like Harpoon integration was never a high priority, like it would be for Australia. I am not sure if LRASM is even on the list. JSM? There are other missiles and weapons, but are they in the ADF arsenal, if not how much, how long to be acquired. Would we have to be the integrating customer?

Typhoon Can Carry Harpoon Missile, BAE Says | Aviation Week Network

BENGALURU — BAE Systems is adamant that Boeing’s anti-ship missile, the Harpoon, can be part of the Eurofighter Typhoon’s weapons arsenal. “We are aware of that issue and the Typhoon can carry a Harpoon if a customer wants to integrate it. We have proposed, however, some novel alternatives other...

aviationweek.com

The puzzling absence of UK fixed-wing maritime strike capability | Navy Lookout

The absence of airborne anti-ship capability both in the RN and the RAF

www.navylookout.com

This wasn't meant to be a slight on the Typhoon. Like the F-15 variants that people also often consider as possible viable F-111 replacements, you have to look at the time line of when naval strike capabilities were implemented. Like all aircraft, early versions are often difficult to upgrade and often get stripped for parts, early tranche Eurofighter, F-22 etc. Or need to go expensive refits.

Of course with the F-18 Superhornet, naval strike was extremely high priority. Its prime customer had that need. Even the F-111, originally, was going to be part of the USN, so there was a lot of effort to address those areas.

Eurofighter and Superhornets are very different aircraft. They are much more complimentary, Kuwait bought both.

Going forward, I think the F-35A and the Superhornet are also complimentary. One is a sleek, agile, stealthy fighter, new, tech. The other, an ugly son of a bitch, that isn't graceful, but is rugged, tough, has clear integrated weapons, isn't limited by parts supply, focused on role things other than just air defence including SED, naval, EW etc.

 

[Todjaeger]

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.

If it (Beazley's proposal) came before the law including the Obey amendment was passed, then it also came before first flight of the F-22, and therefore before the F-22 existed as something which Australia (or anyone else for that matter) could have ordered and had built.

The Obey amendment as it is known was included in H.R.2266 — Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1998 and was agreed upon by voice vote 29 July 1997. Raptor first flight was 7 Sept 1997 which was of a prototype as opposed to serial production. Nearly eight years would pass following the Obey amendment before full rate production for the Raptor was hit.

 

[Volkodav]

If it (Beazley's proposal) came before the law including the Obey amendment was passed, then it also came before first flight of the F-22, and therefore before the F-22 existed as something which Australia (or anyone else for that matter) could have ordered and had built.

The Obey amendment as it is known was included in H.R.2266 — Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1998 and was agreed upon by voice vote 29 July 1997. Raptor first flight was 7 Sept 1997 which was of a prototype as opposed to serial production. Nearly eight years would pass following the Obey amendment before full rate production for the Raptor was hit.

Fair enough, it must have been on the selection then, it was before the change in government in 96. It was definitely postulated that a squadron or two of F-22s would be a very good supplement to the Hornets which could then concentrate on the strike role.

 

[Stampede]

The typhoon is a very capable aircraft, no doubt about it. However it design priorities and integration priorities aren't and ideal multirole fit for Australia and its geographic and its geopolitical situation.

Early trache aircraft were very focused around air defence only as I understand it.
UK confirms plans to strip early Typhoon jets for parts

I am not an expert, but it would seem that things like Harpoon integration was never a high priority, like it would be for Australia. I am not sure if LRASM is even on the list. JSM? There are other missiles and weapons, but are they in the ADF arsenal, if not how much, how long to be acquired. Would we have to be the integrating customer?

Typhoon Can Carry Harpoon Missile, BAE Says | Aviation Week Network

BENGALURU — BAE Systems is adamant that Boeing’s anti-ship missile, the Harpoon, can be part of the Eurofighter Typhoon’s weapons arsenal. “We are aware of that issue and the Typhoon can carry a Harpoon if a customer wants to integrate it. We have proposed, however, some novel alternatives other...

aviationweek.com

The puzzling absence of UK fixed-wing maritime strike capability | Navy Lookout

The absence of airborne anti-ship capability both in the RN and the RAF

www.navylookout.com

This wasn't meant to be a slight on the Typhoon. Like the F-15 variants that people also often consider as possible viable F-111 replacements, you have to look at the time line of when naval strike capabilities were implemented. Like all aircraft, early versions are often difficult to upgrade and often get stripped for parts, early tranche Eurofighter, F-22 etc. Or need to go expensive refits.

Of course with the F-18 Superhornet, naval strike was extremely high priority. Its prime customer had that need. Even the F-111, originally, was going to be part of the USN, so there was a lot of effort to address those areas.

Eurofighter and Superhornets are very different aircraft. They are much more complimentary, Kuwait bought both.

Going forward, I think the F-35A and the Superhornet are also complimentary. One is a sleek, agile, stealthy fighter, new, tech. The other, an ugly son of a bitch, that isn't graceful, but is rugged, tough, has clear integrated weapons, isn't limited by parts supply, focused on role things other than just air defence including SED, naval, EW etc.

Is the F35 / SHornet the best combination, or just what has evolved due to lack of finances in that we have not purchased that forth F35 Sqn?
The merit of the SHornet is the weapons mix it can carry today that the F35 currently cannot.
So as a bridge to the F35 Block 4 upgrade being rolled out it makes sense and saves some coin for other priority's.
Longer term it will be interesting as to what replaces the Hornet.
Could go many directions
My guess more manned F35s or alternatively a unmanned something else.

A decision for the 2030s

Cheers S

 

[Redlands18]

double posted

 

[Redlands18]

Is the F35 / SHornet the best combination, or just what has evolved due to lack of finances in that we have not purchased that forth F35 Sqn?
The merit of the SHornet is the weapons mix it can carry today that the F35 currently cannot.
So as a bridge to the F35 Block 4 upgrade being rolled out it makes sense and saves some coin for other priority's.
Longer term it will be interesting as to what replaces the Hornet.
Could go many directions
My guess more manned F35s or alternatively a unmanned something else.

A decision for the 2030s

Cheers S

I think the Shornet replacement is very much, a wait and watch to see what emerges out of the future programs happening in the US and Europe for manned aircraft and possible future developments around the MQ-28 and F-35. I think the RAAF is a long way from making any decisions.

 

[Armchair]

Is the F35 / SHornet the best combination, or just what has evolved due to lack of finances in that we have not purchased that forth F35 Sqn?
The merit of the SHornet is the weapons mix it can carry today that the F35 currently cannot.
So as a bridge to the F35 Block 4 upgrade being rolled out it makes sense and saves some coin for other priority's.
Longer term it will be interesting as to what replaces the Hornet.
Could go many directions
My guess more manned F35s or alternatively a unmanned something else.

A decision for the 2030s

Cheers S

This is correct but it is not just what F-18 can carry now (or soon) but also future hypersonic weapons ( see e.g.

Hypersonic Attack Cruise Missile to be integrated on RAAF Super Hornets - Australian Defence Magazine )


that presumably could not be carried internally by F-35

 

[StingrayOZ]

Is the F35 / SHornet the best combination, or just what has evolved due to lack of finances in that we have not purchased that forth F35 Sqn?
The merit of the SHornet is the weapons mix it can carry today that the F35 currently cannot.
So as a bridge to the F35 Block 4 upgrade being rolled out it makes sense and saves some coin for other priority's.
Longer term it will be interesting as to what replaces the Hornet.
Could go many directions
My guess more manned F35s or alternatively a unmanned something else.

I think its a good fit for what we need now. After the block IV upgrade, we can re-assess, but they will arguably still be very useful and relevant, particularly in niche roles. The F-35 build backlog is long, and the IV upgrade will take significant time. Plus we need here and now capability, not just stuff maybe by 2030. It does that for us, for our region. Singapore has F-15s, other allies can bring Typhoons, Superhornets are our bag.

I did see the reveal for the new UK-Japan fighter.

RAF Tempest stealth fighter mock-up offers glimpse into the future of air combat

The aircraft is set to be in service in 2035, with a radar capable of providing 10,000 times more data than current systems.

www.forcesnews.com

Being F-111 sized, may mean, its a bit different from some of the other proposals. Perhaps focusing on long range, fast, stealth perhaps more akin to a FB-22 in concept. But also what is the role of a manned fighter in 2040 is an interesting question to watch. It may be large stealthy planes, firing very long range stealthy munitions, at very long distances.

 

[Stampede]

I think its a good fit for what we need now. After the block IV upgrade, we can re-assess, but they will arguably still be very useful and relevant, particularly in niche roles. The F-35 build backlog is long, and the IV upgrade will take significant time. Plus we need here and now capability, not just stuff maybe by 2030. It does that for us, for our region. Singapore has F-15s, other allies can bring Typhoons, Superhornets are our bag.

I did see the reveal for the new UK-Japan fighter.

RAF Tempest stealth fighter mock-up offers glimpse into the future of air combat

The aircraft is set to be in service in 2035, with a radar capable of providing 10,000 times more data than current systems.

www.forcesnews.com

View attachment 51538

Being F-111 sized, may mean, its a bit different from some of the other proposals. Perhaps focusing on long range, fast, stealth perhaps more akin to a FB-22 in concept. But also what is the role of a manned fighter in 2040 is an interesting question to watch. It may be large stealthy planes, firing very long range stealthy munitions, at very long distances.

Yes the manned thing has / will develop to be a long range domain.
The future dog fight will be beyond visual distance and the aerial archer will be carry arrows of considerable range.
The challenge for the RAAF will be the timing of a sixth generation aircraft.
New aircraft programs usually take longer than expected.
Timing may not suit the lifespan of the SHornet even with upgrades.
As has been discussed on DT with regards to RAAF history and what should and shouldn't of happened, I'm pitching more F35's in the 2030's.

Cheers S

 

[hauritz]

Yes the manned thing has / will develop to be a long range domain.
The future dog fight will be beyond visual distance and the aerial archer will be carry arrows of considerable range.
The challenge for the RAAF will be the timing of a sixth generation aircraft.
New aircraft programs usually take longer than expected.
Timing may not suit the lifespan of the SHornet even with upgrades.
As has been discussed on DT with regards to RAAF history and what should and shouldn't of happened, I'm pitching more F35's in the 2030's.

Cheers S

I suspect that we will see new capabilities gradually being added to the RAAF. Basically we are just talking about the evolution of the Loyal Wingman concept. By the time the Rhino reaches retirement age we might already have a substancial number of armed drones in service. I think at that stage the question will be whether or not the RAAF still requires a manned component to its long range strike capability.

 

[old faithful]

Aircraft down during Pitch Black today, pilot ejected safely.
Have not named the nationality or aircraft type, however, it seems it was a single seater.

 

[Takao]

Is the F35 / SHornet the best combination, or just what has evolved due to lack of finances in that we have not purchased that forth F35 Sqn?
The merit of the SHornet is the weapons mix it can carry today that the F35 currently cannot.
So as a bridge to the F35 Block 4 upgrade being rolled out it makes sense and saves some coin for other priority's.
Longer term it will be interesting as to what replaces the Hornet.
Could go many directions
My guess more manned F35s or alternatively a unmanned something else.

A decision for the 2030s

Cheers S

It's more an indication that the Super Hornet provides an actual capability that is useful for the foreseeable future. Especially if there are any further delays to the Block 4 upgrade, Super's can do strike and DCA now....the F-35s not so.

Why we'd want a fourth Sqn of F-35s (or, indeed, a sixth Sqn of fighters) when so much else is lack continues to be a question that I don't understand....

 

[John Newman]

Aircraft down during Pitch Black today, pilot ejected safely.
Have not named the nationality or aircraft type, however, it seems it was a single seater.

Italian Air Force Typhoon

Italian Eurofighter Crashes In Australia During Ex. Pitch Black 2024

The Italian Air Force has confirmed that the pilot was successfully rescued. A Eurofighter Typhoon belonging to the Italian Air Force (Aeronautica

theaviationist.com

 

[Stampede]

It's more an indication that the Super Hornet provides an actual capability that is useful for the foreseeable future. Especially if there are any further delays to the Block 4 upgrade, Super's can do strike and DCA now....the F-35s not so.

Why we'd want a fourth Sqn of F-35s (or, indeed, a sixth Sqn of fighters) when so much else is lack continues to be a question that I don't understand....

The answer apparently is that SSN's fix everything.
I kind of want to like them, but they will tax a F Tonne lot of capability across the three services.
That fourth Sqn may well be sacrificed.
Hopefully the complimentary unmanned concept both works and is funded.

Apologies for the negativity

Cheers S

 

[aussienscale]

And meanwhile in other news this is a major disappointment to say the least, what the !! is going on here !! The Ghost Bat is basically dusted and useless !!

https://www.minister.defence.gov.au/transcripts/2024-07-24/television-interview-sky-news

 

[MARKMILES77]

And meanwhile in other news this is a major disappointment to say the least, what the !! is going on here !! The Ghost Bat is basically dusted and useless !!

https://www.minister.defence.gov.au/transcripts/2024-07-24/television-interview-sky-news

Airforce previously revealed there were no plans to put weapons on them.
Not sure why the U.S. would not want the Ghost Bat to be armed?

 

[Bob53]

And meanwhile in other news this is a major disappointment to say the least, what the !! is going on here !! The Ghost Bat is basically dusted and useless !!

https://www.minister.defence.gov.au/transcripts/2024-07-24/television-interview-sky-news

What does this do to force planning going forward? many suggestions here were that Ghost Bat may form in place of the the missing F35 squadron or act as a missile truck with plenty of depictions showing them as a flying picket for P8s and tankers. If it’s ISR isnt there a range of existing options out there? Why bother build a new airframe to do this?

 

[CJR]

And meanwhile in other news this is a major disappointment to say the least, what the !! is going on here !! The Ghost Bat is basically dusted and useless !!

https://www.minister.defence.gov.au/transcripts/2024-07-24/television-interview-sky-news

Sounds like something of a beat-up, indeed some media at the time the Ghost Bat first broke cover suggested initial versions at least would have a ISR focus. So, doesn't look like that drastic of a change in the short term. The interview (your first link) has the minister state:

ASSISTANT MINISTER:

Well, there's still the option to arm it as far as I'm aware. When I was at the facility in Melbourne, the people that were working on the program from Boeing and the Royal Australian Air Force did indicate that the program has the capability in the future to be an armed and a combat drone, if you like, and those decisions will be made in the future.

So, there's still the possibility of an armed variant in the future.

 

[John Fedup]

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.

Never understood the export ban for the F-22 or why it wasn't reconsidered when the cost skyrocketed. Certainly Japan and probably others could have provided perhaps up to 200 additional jets. This might have allowed the USAF to buy an additional 100 jets at a lower cost. The last production F-22 had a cost of $149 million IIRC excluding R&D costs. I wonder how much lower this could have been with 200-300 more jets?

 

[hauritz]

What does this do to force planning going forward? many suggestions here were that Ghost Bat may form in place of the the missing F35 squadron or act as a missile truck with plenty of depictions showing them as a flying picket for P8s and tankers. If it’s ISR isnt there a range of existing options out there? Why bother build a new airframe to do this?

This does put Australia in an awkward position. I feel that possessing a sovereign UCAV capability is vital going forward. You cannot rely on foreign production lines if a major war breaks out.

Australia will probably still get its killer drones but it will now have to decide whether it funds the development of these aircraft itself or goes with a foreign design. Wouldn't expect any decisions any time soon.