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

[downunderblue]

They are useful aircraft if you have the capability to escort them (ie you are the USAF). And until the USAF has b21 usefully operational (which may be 10 years after they take delivery of the first B21) they will be essential. When the USAF is done, they will be cut up.

If we are interested in a long range offensive platform, Tempest would be it. Its looking more like a modern day stealthy, more capable F-111. Rumored weapon bays may be able to internally carry multiple Aim174b, LRASM-ER, or maybe TLAM or/and a whole lot of smaller stuff. Fast enough to out run other long range munitions/decoys as well. While not cheap, we could probably afford a 12-24 of these, so proper squadron. UK/JP could also base same aircraft here.

This type of aircraft could escort E7s or P8s or KC30. They could do maritime/land strike. They could go after opposing team tankers/AWACs/transports.

I don't know what the RAAF isn't all over it.

This goes into a really interesting debate about the value of long range strike when detering an enemy. Yes we lost it with the retirement and aging of the F-111. We were in the "new world order" age where we could compromise, but times have changed and whilst I am a believer in SSN's, for me they are also another piecemeal attempt at meeting this need. I don't doubt the value of a payload module equipped with long range strike missiles, I just see their value dependant on how sustained they can deploy and exercise that capability, and nothing beats the ability of an aircraft squadron to conduct sustained operations (land, reload and go again), as opposed to the ability of an SSN (back to FBW to reload etc).

I also understand the politics. Something took the B-21 off the table and the reasoning was never fully explained. My awareness of Canberra leads me to believe that Russell sacrificed the B-21 to ensure the SSN's were signed off. There could have also been other reasons like resistance in Congress, the USAF or the Administration to sell the B-21, but the same argument for US selling the Virginia's can be made for the B-21, which benefits both of us. Buying B-21's also mitigates risk having two deterant options available as opposed to one which also is better for the US and AU.

We shouldn't have had to compare SSN's vs airborne long range strike and be forced to make ONE choice only. If strategic circumstances exist where we need both then we shouldn't be so final in rejecting the B-21 or a similar capability. Maybe a future coalition govt would be more keen to commit to an acquisition (who knows) but we need to be flexible with our decision making. What makes sense yesterday isn't always relevant today, but we need to look to the future and make our best guess on what we need to secure ourselves.

As for Tempest, I read that the RAF will start receiving airframes by 2035. Call me suspicious/ realistic or pragmatic, but for me there is considerable more project, industrial and political risk in Tempest as their is for the B-21. That date may slip whereas the B-21 is in low rate production already. I don't want to be waiting for something in the future that might fit the criteria.

As for the Tempest vs the B-21, they are different aircraft with different roles, range, timeframes and cost. The overwhelming issue for me is theater deterant, and if I was a regional player like China I would be much more concerned if the CoA committed to the B-21 given it will more likely materialise earlier and lead to a more sustained/ capable threat for the PLA to contend with.

We are putting many eggs (effort and $) into deternant and perception that our efforts will not go unoticed. Will/ does Xi truly understand we are serious, and to take INDOPACOM and regional allies on would end up in serious risk to his/ their leadership and the future of China as a whole? Again we better hope so.

 

[Todjaeger]

This goes into a really interesting debate about the value of long range strike when detering an enemy. Yes we lost it with the retirement and aging of the F-111. We were in the "new world order" age where we could compromise, but times have changed and whilst I am a believer in SSN's, for me they are also another piecemeal attempt at meeting this need. I don't doubt the value of a payload module equipped with long range strike missiles, I just see their value dependant on how sustained they can deploy and exercise that capability, and nothing beats the ability of an aircraft squadron to conduct sustained operations (land, reload and go again), as opposed to the ability of an SSN (back to FBW to reload etc).

Realistically the RAAF started to lose long-ranged strike as the F-111C aged, before they were actually retired in 2010. When the platform first entered service they were capable of low & fast ingress and egress strike missions due to the platform's capabilities as well as what capabilities were available to the then potential hostiles (Indonesia). By the time the RAAF retired the F-111C's, even though the aircraft still had long range, by the 2000's the potential threats in hostile air meant that a strike package would need to be escorted. This in turn limited the RAAF's potential strike range to that of F/A-18A/B's range when in an air escort/air-to-air engagement configuration.

In reality, the RAAF had a strike range of ~700 km, not the ~2,100 km range many think of due to the F-111C's range.

One thing I would suggest people consider when contemplating long-range strike options for the ADF, consider the volume of fires wanted, the persistence of presence, the range or reach desired for the fires, as well as the speed of strike and successful delivery of fires on target. One also needs to remember that there are multiple potential options or avenues for the delivery of said fires.

 

[downunderblue]

One thing I would suggest people consider when contemplating long-range strike options for the ADF, consider the volume of fires wanted, the persistence of presence, the range or reach desired for the fires, as well as the speed of strike and successful delivery of fires on target. One also needs to remember that there are multiple potential options or avenues for the delivery of said fires.

I note in your posed question that you didn't provide any recommendation or answer.

From what I noted earlier in your post, I form the assumption that only a long range, large payload aircraft can meet those criteria. Yes a few regiments of IRBM/ ICBM's with a conventional package may also work, but let's be realistic here.

I also infer that you're not recommending us relying on short-leg more tactical aircraft needing tanker support as the likelihood of it being in there in theatre would be low, and why also rely on a capability which is dependant upon another capability to properly function?

In WW2 the USAF needed to invade (at great cost) the Marshall Island's in order to affect long range strike on Japan. This reflects the difficulty in the Indopacom area given the vast distances involved and no guarantee of a forward or reliably operating airbase in range of an adversary. From all that I assume we need an aircraft that can independently affect long range strike from AU without the support of any allied partner or a airborne refueling capability that will likely will be heavily targeted by an adversary during any conflict?

Again I only see one real answer here. It's noisy, big, black, has a large wallop and is categorized as a strategic ranged 'bomber', but I'd be interested to hear what others think would reliably work in such a scenario.

 

[protoplasm]

With the Collins class lote on the road to rack and ruin! And the dismissal for B21 to bridge the gap of long range stealth strike should we look to acquire the 12-24 of the latest upgraded B-1Bs that are now being replaced by the B-21? They are long range bomb trucks that have proven themselves recently as excellent maritime bombers! I know they are getting on but the new upgrade versions will still have 10-15 years life in them and would bridge the gap till nuclear subs are in numbers, and the gap till the RAAF finds replacement for Super Hornets.. what’s peoples thoughts? They wouldnt cost a thing but given away by the US.. with all parts and equipment to support! I’d love to see a small squadron of 12 that could be used a deterrent specially across the pacific

I'm just going to put this here again... This was discussed over 2 years ago

There's a reason why the USAF is taking them out of service, the cost per flight hour is enormous.

This Is How Much it Actually Costs to Fly U.S. Military Aircraft (popularmechanics.com)

The last thing we need the RAAF to be doing is throwing away billions of dollars to stand up a new capability utilising airframes that are a minimum of 34 years old right now. The other issue is that these aren't available right now, they will only become available once B-21 becomes operational, so they'll be even older then.

This goes back to the fundamentals, we want the capacity to cause an enemy "something" to go bang because we put a large amount of explosive on top of it. What are the ways of achieving this based on the situation we find ourselves in now? A capability that might become available in ~5 years time based upon ~40 year old airframes that are hideously expensive to operate is probably not the first choice.

 

[Todjaeger]

I note in your posed question that you didn't provide any recommendation or answer.

From what I noted earlier in your post, I form the assumption that only a long range, large payload aircraft can meet those criteria. Yes a few regiments of IRBM/ ICBM's with a conventional package may also work, but let's be realistic here.

I also infer that you're not recommending us relying on short-leg more tactical aircraft needing tanker support as the likelihood of it being in there in theatre would be low, and why also rely on a capability which is dependant upon another capability to properly function?

In WW2 the USAF needed to invade (at great cost) the Marshall Island's in order to affect long range strike on Japan. This reflects the difficulty in the Indopacom area given the vast distances involved and no guarantee of a forward or reliably operating airbase in range of an adversary. From all that I assume we need an aircraft that can independently affect long range strike from AU without the support of any allied partner or a airborne refueling capability that will likely will be heavily targeted by an adversary during any conflict?

Again I only see one real answer here. It's noisy, big, black, has a large wallop and is categorized as a strategic ranged 'bomber', but I'd be interested to hear what others think would reliably work in such a scenario.

I think you missed the gist of what I was posting.

If Australia needs to hit something within a few hundred km of a coastline, then surface or submarine platforms are an option. If such a strike needed to be launched with little warning, then a sub would likely be a better option. If said strike target is also a very long distance from Australia, sub or surface ship platforms might be better, particularly if there might be a delay in launching said strike.

If the strike target is something within perhaps 1,500 km of Australia, then existing ADF assets could likely be tasked. If a large volume of fires is needed on target rapidly, then Australia might need a strategic bomber or otherwise adopt something like the Rapid Dragon palletized weapon delivery system.

At the heart of the issue is that there are multiple approaches to the question or problem of hitting a target or targets, with each approach having various benefits and drawbacks. Likewise each target might have different issues depending on how it is engaged. Absent more information, proposing something with the capabilities of a LO strategic bomber is really more a solution seeking a problem.

The ADF and RAAF, just by way of example, already has the potential to launch a strike via aircraft upon targets over 2,500 km away without refueling.