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

[StevoJH]

Yes you would have to think so.

And how are any Virginia's we get going to be similarly hobbled?

They won’t have to hobble them, they’ll just say that due to ship shortages they can only make available early block Virginia class submarines.

No doubt they will be due for their last long availability docking at time of transfer and no doubt as part of the agreement that will needs to occur in a US shipyard, probably right at the back end of the queue.

 

[south]

Meanwhile, the RAAF are getting after delivering real capability gains - first LRASM employment from a RAAF super hornet.

 

[SammyC]

They won’t have to hobble them, they’ll just say that due to ship shortages they can only make available early block Virginia class submarines.

No doubt they will be due for their last long availability docking at time of transfer and no doubt as part of the agreement that will needs to occur in a US shipyard, probably right at the back end of the queue.

I think we would still take them.

If my memory is correct the first two were going to be about 15 year old platforms just out of refit anyway, so exactly what you say above.

If the third ends up being a second hand unit as well, then it would just be an earlier transition to the AUKUS design.

I'm thinking our Henderson facility may take USN Virginia overhaul workload by that time as well.

 

[ADMk2]

Meanwhile, the RAAF are getting after delivering real capability gains - first LRASM employment from a RAAF super hornet.

Minister Conroy confirmed we will be seeing LRASM on the F-35A…

Obviously doesn’t read defencetalk…

 

[StingrayOZ]

Minister Conroy confirmed we will be seeing LRASM on the F-35A…

Obviously doesn’t read defencetalk…

It is good to see confirmation on what is planned/hoped.
It would be even better if he could state when that capability (F35/P8) would be realised.

We have seen F-35B/C with LRASM. But its a navy weapon on Navy planes... Its integrated on the B1, but we can't always assume every navy weapon is always integrated into Air force platforms with the same priority, and the F-35A has a long list of priorities, even if they are highly similar. Again, Japan thought the F-15 was in line for LRASM integration, but it wasn't, so after publically announcing it, they canned it.

Given the current state of the world, I think it pays to be somewhat skeptical on integration and future capabilities until they are proven enough. Having our own proven LRASM capability is a good thing. I look forward to it being fired from the P8 after their upgrades.

Even if integrations are happening, they don't always provide effective capability, or are completed effectively, or timely. Or more often, more upgrades are required to enable that capability which can significant delay FOC or costs. Enough to kill that capability for Aus..

The recent announcement is Australian F-18 firing LRASM. LRASM was EOC to the USN in 2019. So a 6 year lag. Which is fine, even impressive. It's still in service faster than any F-35 operator.

IMO aim 174B capability, would be another one to seek. However, if the plan is to go to a F-35 only fleet, the RAAF would possibly deliberately scuttle such plans, particularly if there is no Aim174B capability integration for the F-35, which is highly likely. CONUS isn't facing the same threats as maybe we are.

Malcom Davis was talking about RAAF acquiring this capability a year ago and it seemed to have attracted positive comments from RAAF SH people. But maybe, not so much from RAAF top brass and F-35. Even so, at the current rate, it wouldn't be in service with the RAAF until after the near future sino-american conflict. But given the upgrades required for LRASM, may also enable aim174b, perhaps it could, if ordered near immediately.

It's not that integrations is impossible. But timelines, priorities and money, and timelines and priorities are now more important than money. I worry that announcing new fighters that will arrive in the 2040's, may take funding, oxygen and priorities away from weapons/platforms which could arrive and be FOC next year. It would be a shame to announce a 4th squadron of F-35's, and then have to delay or cancel it.

 

[Aardvark144]

It is good to see confirmation on what is planned/hoped.
It would be even better if he could state when that capability (F35/P8) would be realised.

Malcom Davis was talking about RAAF acquiring this capability a year ago and it seemed to have attracted positive comments from RAAF SH people. But maybe, not so much from RAAF top brass and F-35. Even so, at the current rate, it wouldn't be in service with the RAAF until after the near future sino-american conflict. But given the upgrades required for LRASM, may also enable aim174b, perhaps it could, if ordered near immediately.

It's not that integrations is impossible. But timelines, priorities and money, and timelines and priorities are now more important than money. I worry that announcing new fighters that will arrive in the 2040's, may take funding, oxygen and priorities away from weapons/platforms which could arrive and be FOC next year. It would be a shame to announce a 4th squadron of F-35's, and then have to delay or cancel it.

Australia – Long Range Anti-Ship Missiles (LRASMs) | Defense Security Cooperation Agency

www.dsca.mil

Noting Malcom Davis's comments - given the DSCA notification in February 2020, would the RAAF not already have been looking at the LRASM on the Super Hornets then? Given the Classic was retired at the end of 2021, I would not have thought it realistic to spend USD$990M on a weapon and not include planning for the Super Hornets and F35?

 

[StingrayOZ]

Noting Malcom Davis's comments - given the DSCA notification in February 2020, would the RAAF not already have been looking at the LRASM on the Super Hornets then? Given the Classic was retired at the end of 2021, I would not have thought it realistic to spend USD$990M on a weapon and not include planning for the Super Hornets and F35?

LRASM has been on the radar for a very, very long time.
Its the USN premier anti-shipping munition, replacing the harpoon in air launched capabilities.

We were all over the LRASM precursor/design basis, the JASSM. We wanted to integrate JASSM on P3s and F-111s but then it turned out too expensive for the capability. Australia was the first country to acquire JASSM after the US. We had been chasing this since before 2000 and made announcements in 2006 of acquiring that munition, replacing popeye, which was kind of integrated for the F-111 before we blew them all up.

Then the USN pulled out of JASSM acquisition... SLAM-ER was integrated on P3s and JASSM/JASSM-ER work kinda stopped on many platforms, again, if the USN isn't firing it, why does it pay to integrate it? That isn't to say choosing SLAM-ER would have solved any problems, that too was a dead end.

In 2021 we also acquired JASSM-ER... Are we able to fire these from the F-35 as of yet?
LRASM integration efforts seemed to have taken priority over JASSM and JASSM-ER efforts. Because LRASM has basically replaced JASSM/JASSM-ER. It will follow, but its about priorities. IMO LRASM is a greater priority for the F-35 than JASSM-ER.

That said, Japan has just purchased another 16 JASSM-ER (jan 2025) to go with an earlier 50 purchase back in 2023. It can fire these from F-15. And hopefully F-35.. The US announcement specifically only mentions "but not limited to" F-15.

Japan – Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missiles with Extended Range (JASSM-ER) | Defense Security Cooperation Agency

www.dsca.mil

The proposed sale will improve Japan’s capability to meet current and future threats by providing stand-off capability via advanced, long-range strike systems for employment on Japan Air Self-Defense Force (JASDF) fighter aircraft including but not limited to the F-15J.

IMO maybe I am reading too much into it, but this would seem as of jan 2025 the F-35 is not yet integrated with JASSM/JASSM-ER. Otherwise why wouldn't the US say F-35. JASSM-ER has been in US service since 2014 and JASSM since 2009. More interestingly, the Australian announcement back in 2022, indicated F-18F capability, and in the future F-35A.

https://www.minister.defence.gov.au/media-releases/2022-04-05/35-billion-accelerate-missile-strike-capabilities-adf

F-35 integration is backlogged. Any F-35 capability is likely to be further delayed by requiring Block IV which can only be done after the TR-3 upgrade. The fastest way to accelerate F-35 backlog and save money, is to skip weapon/platform combinations that few operators use.

I quote APDR from feb-march 2025

New weapons that can be carried by virtue of the Block 4 upgrade include: Small Diameter Bomb Block 2; Meteor; Joint Strike Missile (JSM); Spear 3; AARGM-ER; AGM-158 LRASS/JASSM; and Paveway 4. It is anticipated that in future they will also be able 16 APDR | Feb-Mar 2025 to launch hypersonic weapons. Recently integrated weapons are ASRAAM and JSOW-C1.

Also enabled is carrying AIM120 from 4 to 6. But it would seem F-35 can't currently fire JASSM, which leaves the SH fleet the only ones firing LRASM, JASSM, SDB-II and JSOW... This makes up the majority of useful weapons for the RAAF. While AIM-120D is nice, its not likely what we need in our region today. We aren't being overflown by Chinese J16's.

My point isn't that LRASM wasn't expected to be purchased. Its that integration and FOC is not instantaneous. LRASM was integrated and test fired on USN jets back in 2019, before we retired classic hornets. It can take that long to start a program, acquire the material, upgrade the platforms, train everyone, and test it locally.

We also don't have any public information on how quickly Block IV will happen or how quickly the proceeding TR-3 will happen. One plane firing one weapon does not a capability make. I am just worried how much of what will be operational in the <2028 timeframe. Cause if we want that to happen we should make it our highest priority and throw people and money at it immediately.

I worry that our political class doesn't see the priority, and may be surprised in senates estimates or through media, that most of our fast jet fleet can't fire most of our weapon inventory and may not for 10+ years on a project that isn't yet public.. Yet the decision to kill existing SH capability which is offering that capability. For all of the Super hornets limitations, it can fire weapons today. It is still bridging capability and will for likely, decades.

This isn't unique to air platforms either, with Anzac, Hobart, Collins all coming out of the water for lengthy upgrades/refits. The argument isn't to not do them, but better planning and risk mitigation. Unified fleets come with unified problems.

 

[Armchair]

I worry that our political class doesn't see the priority, and may be surprised in senates estimates or through media, that most of our fast jet fleet can't fire most of our weapon inventory and may not for 10+ years on a project that isn't yet public.. Yet the decision to kill existing SH capability which is offering that capability. For all of the Super hornets limitations, it can fire weapons today. It is still bridging capability and will for likely, decades.

Again I agree with much of your post, but Is there a decision to kill SH capability? There is an announcement from the opposition of their plans for a fourth squadron of F-35 but I don’t think they have spoken about whether that is instead of, or in addition to, SH and there is an election they would need to win before they are in any position to make a decision (after which the circumstances and briefings may change their minds). Assuming they win, and implement their plan, how soon would the 4th squadron of F-35 be available? My guess is it would be close to 10 years away. So, if this chain of events occurs (leaving out the major war you see as likely), then more weapons should be available for F-35.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Again I agree with much of your post, but Is there a decision to kill SH capability?

Is there a decision to kill collins capability?

Not specifically. But that is what happens. You kill the capability, you kill the people pipeline, you kill the upgrades, you hollow out the funding, it dies, on the vine. SH capability is already small and fickle, it was never the main game, so it's even easier to kill with neglect. Announcing a new platform to replace and existing one, you have announced to people who make decisions about their career, to not choose that platform. That happens from the announcement.

There is an announcement from the opposition of their plans for a fourth squadron of F-35 but I don’t think they have spoken about whether that is instead of, or in addition to, SH and there is an election they would need to win before they are in any position to make a decision (after which the circumstances and briefings may change their minds).

The fact that it precedes all other needs is worrying. Now oxygen will shift to longtermisim and we will sacrifice our short term needs. The fact that it wasn't made clear if that was in addition to or replacing SH is also worrying. And in the dumb world we live in, things often get worse by the time, someone else picks up an idea and runs with it. I don't want to talk politics, but it's entirely possible a policy can get picked up by the other side(or a different team on that side) and implemented, or committed to, but in a worse and even more poorly than anticipated way, as a reaction, purely for headlines.

RAAF priority should probably be on the P8 ahead of every other manned weapons platform. Then SH, then F-35. That may change, but in terms of 2024-2030?

I got to say any F-35 acquisition announcements currently are likely to be met negatively by the public, particularly right now. I don't think anyone is asking for a review, but in terms of priorities and effectiveness, the F-35 isn't what is hot, right now. It's a sexy platform, who will be very important in the future, but currently it isn't doing all the heavy lifting, particularly in the ASW, ASuW, maritime patrol, forward deployment, long range strike, EW, etc. But it is the biggest part/focus of the RAAF.

 

[Wombat000]

As much as I love the F-35, I don’t think more is better.
With the introduction of heavy LRASM I’m unconvinced the F-35 can carry a meaningful load far enough to fulfil the Maritime Strike role to its best potential.

The recent transit of the Chinese vessels highlighting the benefits of rapidly deployable counter-maritime capability, and the valid notion of arming P-8s (obviously a military 737) support weight-speed-reach requirements, not just in continental waterways as demonstrated, but in the littorals.

As far as I’m aware, excepting the initial concept of acquiring 100 F-35 airframes, the only mention of getting more was a recent Liberal Party thought bubble.

Instead, IMO it validates the F-18 SH, and implies if there were further fast jet acquisitions it would probably be good to cater primarily focusing on the Maritime Strike role. That suggests actually more SHs or even something fast but heavier such as a maritime biased F-15 (accepting burdens of another aircraft type but the capability might be worth it).

 

[hauritz]

Really replacing the Rhino isn't the issue. The Rhino was intended as a placeholder until we got got something better ... like the F-35. But really neither aircraft is a true F-111 replacement. The F111 gave the RAAF a strategic strike capability. That capability became less important over time. Well news flash, strategic strike capability is important again.

If the plan is for an extra squadron of F-35s to do F-35 things that is all well and good. If we want to acquire a strategic strike capability then we should probably look harder. The B-21 is off the table, for now, a change of government or pressure from the US to boost our defence spending could change that.

As things stand there are other options in the wings but they could take a decade or more to evolve. By all means buy extra F-35s but I would still be keeping the Rhinos until something better came along.

 

[Todjaeger]

Really replacing the Rhino isn't the issue. The Rhino was intended as a placeholder until we got got something better ... like the F-35. But really neither aircraft is a true F-111 replacement. The F111 gave the RAAF a strategic strike capability. That capability became less important over time. Well news flash, strategic strike capability is important again.

If the plan is for an extra squadron of F-35s to do F-35 things that is all well and good. If we want to acquire a strategic strike capability then we should probably look harder. The B-21 is off the table, for now, a change of government or pressure from the US to boost our defence spending could change that.

As things stand there are other options in the wings but they could take a decade or more to evolve. By all means buy extra F-35s but I would still be keeping the Rhinos until something better came along.

A point of correction here. The F-111 once it actually entered RAAF service in 1973 (as the planned replacement for the Canberra medium bombers) gave the RAAF a medium to long-range tactical strike capability initially, but as time went on and the capabilities of potential adversaries increased, RAAF F-111C's became less able to carry out long-range strikes. Eventually, the forces defending potential strike targets had expanded or improved sufficiently to where RAAF fighter escorts were deemed necessary which in turn meant that the RAAF's effective strike range was limited to the range of RAAF fighters.

There was also that period of time when the RAAF leased F-4E Phantom II fighters from the US to provide an interim replacement capability for the Canberra bombers, whilst developmental delays and airframe structural issues were being resolved in the F-111C.

IMO it is also worth pointing out that the max strike range of a RAAF SHornet before getting LRASM was some 900+ km, with LRASM then we are talking 1,200+ km. If the JASSM-ER does get adapted to fire from RAAF SHornets, then we are talking ranges of 1,800+ km.

 

[ADMk2]

As much as I love the F-35, I don’t think more is better.
With the introduction of heavy LRASM I’m unconvinced the F-35 can carry a meaningful load far enough to fulfil the Maritime Strike role to its best potential.

The recent transit of the Chinese vessels highlighting the benefits of rapidly deployable counter-maritime capability, and the valid notion of arming P-8s (obviously a military 737) support weight-speed-reach requirements, not just in continental waterways as demonstrated, but in the littorals.

As far as I’m aware, excepting the initial concept of acquiring 100 F-35 airframes, the only mention of getting more was a recent Liberal Party thought bubble.

Instead, IMO it validates the F-18 SH, and implies if there were further fast jet acquisitions it would probably be good to cater primarily focusing on the Maritime Strike role. That suggests actually more SHs or even something fast but heavier such as a maritime biased F-15 (accepting burdens of another aircraft type but the capability might be worth it).

What makes you think the Super Hornet can carry a “meaningful load far enough” but a longer ranged F-35A can’t?

A GBU-31 JDAM depending on configuration weighs somewhere in the vicinity of 961kgs.

An AGM-158C LRASM depending on configuration weighs somewhere in the vicinity of 953kgs.

F-35A’s are clearly designed to be capable of carrying heavy payload. Afterall their payload capacity of 8160kgs exceeds that of the Super Hornet’s 8050kgs…

So I am unsure on what basis the SH is the more suitable carrier? Sure, it is integrated already, but the F-35A is the more capable striker of the two, as intended…

 

[Wombat000]

I was thinking predominantly of range.
Accepting loss of stealth and underwing hardpoints v carriage of ordinance and a drop tank I understood SH to have longer range and more carriage options.
Ideally, in a beautiful world it’d be good to conduct these tasks without requiring AAR if possible simply to reduce the logistics burden.

 

[ADMk2]

I was thinking predominantly of range.
Accepting loss of stealth and underwing hardpoints v carriage of ordinance and a drop tank I understood SH to have longer range and more carriage options.
Ideally, in a beautiful world it’d be good to conduct these tasks without requiring AAR if possible simply to reduce the logistics burden.

F-35A loses stealth when it carries external stores to varying degrees that is true. They will also lose range thanks to a substantial increase in parasitic drag.

But the same is true, regarding the SH. It’s RCS will similarly increase and carrying large stores such as LRASM missiles will also increase parasitic drag on the already “draggy” SH, but it will also reduce the external fuel tank carriage options for the SH, with the stores carried.

So the SH range will be effected, I suspect to substantially lower than F-35, but then some LRASM capability is better than none, I guess... In both cases I don’t see either aircraft conducting any sort of long ranged strike without air refuelling support so it’s all a bit immaterial really.

I guess the real solution is more AAR for RAAF, but the “more capability at what cost” rub enters the chat at that point…

 

[Pusser01]

Out of interest, the JASSM that were purchased for use on the F/A-18A's, were these then transitioned over for use on the Super's once the A's were retired? Cheers

 

[ADMk2]

Out of interest, the JASSM that were purchased for use on the F/A-18A's, were these then transitioned over for use on the Super's once the A's were retired? Cheers

Not officially…

Defence / RAAF have been very quiet on them. Even when they sometimes bring a few toys out to play. Like a dual-AARGM launcher and a dual-JDAM rack on an Avalon bound Rhino… (With a JSOW and an AMRAAM under the other wing for good measure…)

 

[Wombat000]

Further and to clarify why SHs are better suited for the maritime strike role is weapon load outs:

I don’t believe an LRASM fits on a F35 internally, thereby restricting it to inner wing pylons, restricting it to two rounds per aircraft.
(I think that’s correct).
I haven’t yet seen a F35 with a centreline pylon, or a centreline drop tank.

Where as the SH can carry 4 LRASM on wing pylons and a centreline tank extending unsupported range, correct?

The number of rounds is pivotal as to hopefully overwhelm the target defending AA.
Launching from such long stand off distance reduced immediate issues of stealth observability (a 737 variant is a solution!)

So I contend that Maritime Strike is a priority capability asset ideally worthy of a dedicated squadron, and the SH or heavier is the optimal solution.

 

[Todjaeger]

Further and to clarify why SHs are better suited for the maritime strike role is weapon load outs:

I don’t believe an LRASM fits on a F35 internally, thereby restricting it to inner wing pylons, restricting it to two rounds per aircraft.
(I think that’s correct).
I haven’t yet seen a F35 with a centreline pylon, or a centreline drop tank.

Where as the SH can carry 4 LRASM on wing pylons and a centreline tank extending unsupported range, correct?

The number of rounds is pivotal as to hopefully overwhelm the target defending AA.
Launching from such long stand off distance reduced immediate issues of stealth observability (a 737 variant is a solution!)

So I contend that Maritime Strike is a priority capability asset ideally worthy of a dedicated squadron, and the SH or heavier is the optimal solution.

Not sure some of the numbers are correct. Yes, LRASM does seem too large to fit into the internal weapons bay, so carriage would have to be externally. However, there are six wing hard points, each able to carry a 2,000 lb. JDAM, with an F-35 having a max payload (internal and external) of some 22,000 lbs. of ordnance, vs. just under 18,000 lbs of ordnance for the F/A-18 SHornets.

Now I have not been able to absolutely confirm that each of the F-35 wing hardpoints can all take the slightly beefier LRASM vs. a 2,000 lb. JDAM but it does at least appear to be possible that a single F-35 might be able to cary and launch six LRASM once they are integrated. Incidentally, an F/A-18 only appears to be able to carry four 2,000 lb. JDAM's.

I therefore suspect that, if and when LRASM gets integrated onto the F-35A, a potential maritime or surface strike package might be four to six LRASM launched from F-35's, and/or four LRASM launched from SHornets.

IMO though, I do not really think that a dedicated Maritime Strike capability would serve the ADF well, instead the ADF should task the RAAF with maintaining a strike capability, which would include strikes targeting maritime targets and/or in marine environments. One does need to remember that now, many types of ordnance appropriate for use vs. shipping have dual land-attack capabilities as well.

 

[StingrayOZ]

JSM is a better fit for F-35A.. Goes into bays, steathy, doesn't affect planes range. We have announced its acquisition.

https://www.minister.defence.gov.au/media-releases/2024-09-05/acquisition-joint-strike-missile-boost-australias-long-range-strike-capability

LRASM is better for F-18 and P8 as it has larger warhead and much longer range.
P8 it expected to field the capability in FY26. It will be able to carry four.

First View of LRASM Missile Aboard a US Navy P-8A Poseidon - Naval News

Naval News obtained from the US Navy the first images showing the LRASM (Long Range Anti-Ship Missile) fitted on a P-8A Poseidon Maritime Patrol Aircraft (MPA).

www.navalnews.com

Now I have not been able to absolutely confirm that each of the F-35 wing hardpoints can all take the slightly beefier LRASM vs. a 2,000 lb. JDAM but it does at least appear to be possible that a single F-35 might be able to cary and launch six LRASM once they are integrated. Incidentally, an F/A-18 only appears to be able to carry four 2,000 lb. JDAM's.

I can't see it being 6, it maybe four.

https://www.sandboxx.us/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/payload.jpg

While not definitive, and old, it would seem to make some sense.

If LRASM doesn't fit in the internal bays, then it's really only 2/3 and 9/10. The outer wingtips are for light A2A stuff. LRASM is both long and weird shaped makes it difficult for any internal carriage in anything other than a B1/B2/B-52/B21.. It could carry 6 JSM, two internal, four external, and internal A2A.

Lockheed martin only shows 4 external LRASM carried.

Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM)

LRASM is a low-risk, multi-service, multi-platform, multi-mission Offensive Anti-Surface Warfare cruise missile.

www.lockheedmartin.com

It could carry four LRASM and two JSM. Or four LRASM, and two large glide bombs to clear any lower threat targets. LRASM could take out surface combatants, while glide bombs take out auxiliaries or clean up any thing mission killed but still floating.

JASSM-XR is also in development. Spear3 could also be of interest if we want more shots from the internal bays. Four can be carried per external station, and 4, maybe 6 in each of the internal bays. So 24+ anti-shipping missiles per F-35. They are much shorter ranged and much smaller warheads.

But the problem with this it reliant on upgrading all the fleet to TR3, then to block IV (when that is finalised). Until then the SH are still bridging very important capability. Even once the F-35 is fully block IV, if you are carrying external stores, you might as well use the SH we already have.

There is no plans AFAIK about integrating SM-6 on F35. That is a Navy specific need/project. Designed around removing AWACs, maritime and bombers. AWACs having the advantage of being able to see usually low observable aircraft and low observable munitions. The disadvantage of announcing its presence. Aim260 won't be sufficient for that capability.

TR3 and block four are significant upgrades that change almost every aspect of the aircraft, from the computers, to engines, to radar, sensors to weapons bay to the very surface skin of the aircraft. While TR3 is complete and we have 9, Blk IV isn't. I would be surprised if we had a squadron of Blk IV operational by 2027. Seeing as our lag for weapon FOC is say 6 years. In trying to ramp that capability and change over, we will loose aircraft avalibility.

So all of this wonderful capability, is both so close, but so far.