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

[Bob53]

This article from the drive is also interesting with information about some new capabilities being added to P8s. That look down radar seems to offer incredible capability and I like the idea of a rotating missile rack as long as the missiles are long range.

P8 Capability update the Drive

 

[Boagrius]

AFAIK Peregrine is only a concept missile at this stage but AIM260 development is ongoing. Details are not publically available at the moment but it was stated a while ago that it will not use a ramjet like the one found in MBDA’s Meteor. Recent advances in solid rocket motor technology might provide an even better solution. My guess is that JATM may be using a throttleable solid rocket with new highly loaded grain propellant to achieve better range and endgame performance than the AIM120 it will replace. It’s also supposed to use next-gen seeker technology, so my guess would be the usual GPS/INS aided guidance with an AESA seeker possibly mated to an IIR backup. That said, given the space constraints it might be desirable to forego the IIR component and devote it all to as big and powerful an AESA seeker as possible. Time shall tell!

As for the AN/APS-154 on Poseidon, it also strikes me as a potentially incredible piece of hardware. Given the fact that it is a pretty enormous AESA based pod, it ought to be incredibly versatile as both a sensor and a high powered standoff jammer. I could see it being extremely useful not just for mapping out enemy naval/littoral assets, but potentially for jamming enemy radars and even tracking low flying cruise missiles (over-the-horizon cooperative engagement with datalinked friendly SAMs perhaps?). It’s another bit of kit that is shrouded in secrecy so it’s impossible to know for sure.

 

[old faithful]

I have often wondered if a Wedgetail could carry and launch SM6 or perhaps a drone could carry the SM 6 and wedgetail do what Ageis does?
Is it a stupid idea? Long range interception of enemy awacs or other targets?

 

[Boagrius]

To my mind the Wedgetail is probably not an ideal "shooter" type platform. In practice it is likely to be flying racetrack patterns well behind layers of friendly BARCAP and SAMs, while enemy AEW/AWACS will be doing the same, meaning they will both be a long way from one another. Would the (enormous) SM6 be able to cover this distance if the E7 could carry it? Possibly, but I suspect this is a job that could be better performed by a 5th gen aircraft operating closer to the FEBA. I personally think a case can be made for a western VLRAAM approximating the dimensions of AARGM-ER (bigger than JATM but still smaller and more affordable than SM6) given the size of the PLAAF's emerging ISR fleet, but alas I leave that one to the experts.

 

[Todjaeger]

To my mind the Wedgetail is probably not an ideal "shooter" type platform. In practice it is likely to be flying racetrack patterns well behind layers of friendly BARCAP and SAMs, while enemy AEW/AWACS will be doing the same, meaning they will both be a long way from one another. Would the (enormous) SM6 be able to cover this distance if the E7 could carry it? Possibly, but I suspect this is a job that could be better performed by a 5th gen aircraft operating closer to the FEBA. I personally think a case can be made for a western VLRAAM approximating the dimensions of AARGM-ER (bigger than JATM but still smaller and more affordable than SM6) given the size of the PLAAF's emerging ISR fleet, but alas I leave that one to the experts.

This would take a bit of advanced knowledge and pre-planning, but imagine the potential <ahem> impact, of a sub-launched SAM that is sized to fit a 21" torpedoe tube, and accept datalink/CEC targeting data from an E-7. If hostile MPA and/or AEW aircraft were operating over water that the sub could transit into, or near coastlines that a sub could be lurking in...

It might be possible for sudden and significant degradation of a hostile force's ISR capabilities and therefore SA of a regional battlespace.

 

[Boagrius]

This would take a bit of advanced knowledge and pre-planning, but imagine the potential <ahem> impact, of a sub-launched SAM that is sized to fit a 21" torpedoe tube, and accept datalink/CEC targeting data from an E-7. If hostile MPA and/or AEW aircraft were operating over water that the sub could transit into, or near coastlines that a sub could be lurking in...

It might be possible for sudden and significant degradation of a hostile force's ISR capabilities and therefore SA of a regional battlespace.

That would be a pretty terrifying weapon for ISR aircraft crews if it worked. Even the largest SM6 variant (Blk IB) is a 21" weapon (although perhaps it would need to be containerised for sub launch, which could be prohibitive?). You could theoretically impose A2/AD effects on enemy ISR aircraft over some pretty vast tracts of water. Interesting idea...

 

[ngatimozart]

This would take a bit of advanced knowledge and pre-planning, but imagine the potential <ahem> impact, of a sub-launched SAM that is sized to fit a 21" torpedoe tube, and accept datalink/CEC targeting data from an E-7. If hostile MPA and/or AEW aircraft were operating over water that the sub could transit into, or near coastlines that a sub could be lurking in...

It might be possible for sudden and significant degradation of a hostile force's ISR capabilities and therefore SA of a regional battlespace.

I don't think that it would have to be a large missile. Even something like an ESSM would do the job. The sub would have to get within 20 - 25 nm, but the closer the better because it gives the target less time to react. Even if the missile misses, it will force the enemy to react to the threat, by forcing them to change their operating methods. Do they restrict their ISR & AEW&C activities in the area or do they deploy ASW assets to protect their ISR & AEW&C assets? Or do they protect only a limited number of assets? Or don't pull ASW assets to protect any at all, relying on onboard decoys and other measures?

Those ASW assets will most likely have to be pulled from other equally important areas. And it's not just one ISR & AEW&C asset operating in a maritime environment that they will have to protect, but all of them.

 

[Boagrius]

I don't think that it would have to be a large missile. Even something like an ESSM would do the job. The sub would have to get within 20 - 25 nm, but the closer the better because it gives the target less time to react. Even if the missile misses, it will force the enemy to react to the threat, by forcing them to change their operating methods. Do they restrict their ISR & AEW&C activities in the area or do they deploy ASW assets to protect their s. Those ASW assets will most likely have to be pulled from other equally important areas. And it's not just one ISR & AEW&C asset operating in a maritime environment that they will have to protect, but all of them.

As true as that is, I am more of a sadist. Imagine implementing this concept via SM6 Blk IB with VLS equipped SSNs (VPM) or Ohio Class SSGNs and their vast VLS arrays. Given SM6's secondary role as an AShM, you could theoretically have one or more subs pop up and wreak havoc on everything above water within ~200nm+.

My guess is your launch sub would need a secure datalink to E7/E8/Triton via its ESM mast and the ISR aircraft would need to supply the missiles with their targets at launch + midcourse updates until terminal but it does sound plausible.

 

[ngatimozart]

As true as that is, I am more of a sadist. Imagine implementing this concept via SM6 Blk IB with VLS equipped SSNs (VPM) or Ohio Class SSGNs and their vast VLS arrays. Given SM6's secondary role as an AShM, you could theoretically have one or more subs pop up and wreak havoc on everything above water within ~200nm+.

My guess is your launch sub would need a secure datalink to E7/E8/Triton via its ESM mast and the ISR aircraft would need to supply the missiles with their targets at launch + midcourse updates until terminal but it does sound plausible.

Sadism is frowned upon by the gentleman of the RAAF. They're more into Officers Mess piano burning, which is a time honoured tradition dating back to the battlefields of WW1 and inherited from the RAF.

Now more to the point, this suggestion of sub launched SAM is going off topic and heading into the realms of fantasy. There's enough of that on the RAN thread which is setting the Mods teeth on edge, making us nervy and twitchy. So there's no need to pollute this thread with that rubbish.

 

[koala]

Being a quiet person that is not a defense pro so rarely posts, but have seen this article in the RAAF magazine and has got me wondering what this capability will do and what exactly will there missions will be?

Current Edition : Air Force News Paper : Department of Defence

Department of Defence Air Force News Paper.

www.defence.gov.au

page 4 of the article:- Investigating full spectrum of high-tech scanning

Everyone's thought's?

 

[ngatimozart]

Being a quiet person that is not a defense pro so rarely posts, but have seen this article in the RAAF magazine and has got me wondering what this capability will do and what exactly will there missions will be?

Current Edition : Air Force News Paper : Department of Defence

Department of Defence Air Force News Paper.

www.defence.gov.au

page 4 of the article:- Investigating full spectrum of high-tech scanning

Everyone's thought's?

Nice find. That's quite interesting indeed and has significant potential. Since it fits ok n a King Air in its development stage means that it's not overly large. I noted that they mentioned that it has the capability of stand off scanning, so any potential target wouldn't be aware of its detection until incoming rounds arrived on target.

 

[Todjaeger]

Being a quiet person that is not a defense pro so rarely posts, but have seen this article in the RAAF magazine and has got me wondering what this capability will do and what exactly will there missions will be?

Current Edition : Air Force News Paper : Department of Defence

Department of Defence Air Force News Paper.

www.defence.gov.au

page 4 of the article:- Investigating full spectrum of high-tech scanning

Everyone's thought's?

After having read through the link a few thoughts came to mind.

In terms of the multi-spectrum E/O imaging, it might be that a greater emphasis is now being placed on detecting various optical camouflage systems.

An example of one can be seen in this Youtube video. The material itself is bending/reflecting visible light, but it might not be doing much if anything with IR or UV lighting and could therefore display completely differently. Another consideration which came to mind is that the tech and capability might be useful for detecting and determining what is a valid target vs. a decoy. Visually two objects could look the same, but being made of different materials (dense metal for a tank vs. inflatable rubber/mylar balloon for a dummy tank) could look quite differently using different spectrums.

There has already been a weapon which has the capability of scanning a grouping of potential target vehicles to determine which one(s) is hard-skinned/armoured vs. soft-skinned and then targeting the armoured vehicle. Of course the Brimstone missile uses a millimetre wavelength radar to perform an active scan, but I see no reason why ISR assets would not harvest valuable data using a broader range of wavelengths.

I seem to recall that at one point work was being done to try and use radar systems to be able to actually identify the composition of the material of a contact, based off how the material reacted/reflected the radar signal and returned it.

As an additional idea, this might be a broad or large-area expansion of some of the principles used in forensic imaging. A rather classic example being the use of blacklighting/UV lighting and/or possibly agents like luminol to gather more information.

 

[At lakes]

Australia Releases RFI for Hawk 127 Jet Trainer Replacement - DefPost


The aircraft nominated or suggested in the article for the RAAF Hawk 127 replacement include the new Boeing-Saab T-7A Red Hawk being developed for the U.S. Air Force (USAF), the Korean Aerospace Industries (KAI) T-50 Golden Eagle, the Leonardo M346, and upgraded BAE Hawk.

As previously reported on this forum #6764 6765 the Hawk has a “couple” of years left in her yet, and I would imagine that the Air Force would require a supersonic or near to it trainer as a lead in for the F35, so it would not surprise me if some in Canberra would be hanging out for the T7 which is still under development. I believe the Hawk has just had a MLU so it should good for another five or six years till the T7 comes available. But they may surprise us and go for the T50 or the M346. But I hope not.

 

[oldsig127]

Australia Releases RFI for Hawk 127 Jet Trainer Replacement - DefPost


The aircraft nominated or suggested in the article for the RAAF Hawk 127 replacement include the new Boeing-Saab T-7A Red Hawk being developed for the U.S. Air Force (USAF), the Korean Aerospace Industries (KAI) T-50 Golden Eagle, the Leonardo M346, and upgraded BAE Hawk.

As previously reported on this forum #6764 6765 the Hawk has a “couple” of years left in her yet, and I would imagine that the Air Force would require a supersonic or near to it trainer as a lead in for the F35, so it would not surprise me if some in Canberra would be hanging out for the T7 which is still under development. I believe the Hawk has just had a MLU so it should good for another five or six years till the T7 comes available. But they may surprise us and go for the T50 or the M346. But I hope not.

Yes, BAE completed the LIFCAP for the last of our Hawk 127s last year. The work brought them up to Hawk 128 standard (RAF Hawk T.2) except that the upgraded RAAF aircraft retain the ability to carry (and use?) live weapons which was no longer required by the RAF.

BAE completes Hawk LIFCAP upgrade - Australian Defence Magazine

The final Hawk Mk.127 aircraft to be upgraded under the Lead-In Fighter Capability Assurance Program was handed back to Air Force on March 7.

www.australiandefence.com.au

I can't see the T.2 as being a replacement for the Hawk 127, so surely BAE would need to be offering something like the Advanced Hawk which was being developed with Hindustan and is therefore probably 3 years into a 20 year development program

REVEALED: The BAE-HAL Joint 'Advanced Hawk' - Livefist

Revealed exclusively here on Livefist before its formal unveiling later this month, this is the Advanced Hawk. A joint BAE Systems-Hindustan Aeronautics effort that elevates the proven Hawk jet trainer to a significantly more capable aircraft platform, closer in performance -- both real and...

www.livefistdefence.com

My bet from the other three at this very early stage would be the T-7A, if only because of Boeing's considerable presence in Australia

oldsig

 

[ngatimozart]

My bet from the other three at this very early stage would be the T-7A, if only because of Boeing's considerable presence in Australia

oldsig

My view is that the T-7A would be the front runner because of its capabilities and the fact it's designed with training for the F-35 in mind. It also has the ability to mimic other aircraft types flight characteristics and that would appeal to the RAAF. It's not that Boeing has a presence in Australia, but the capabilities that the platform will offer.

 

[Redlands18]

Is it normal for a RFI to be released 2 years before a program is due to start? According to the IIP the Lead in Fighter Trainer replacement is due to run 2022-33, certainly a pretty decent heads up otherwise.

 

[ngatimozart]

Is it normal for a RFI to be released 2 years before a program is due to start? According to the IIP the Lead in Fighter Trainer replacement is due to run 2022-33, certainly a pretty decent heads up otherwise.

Yes it can be, because as it states they are wanting information. So the issue of an RFI will give them an understanding of what is available in the marketplace. It also tells vendors what the government is requiring in its new capability. The act of raising a RFI also helps the government to crystallize its requirements. After the responses are received, they will be analysed and may result in a further more refined RFI, or a RFT. Don't forget the 2033 would be the year of the completion of the project.

 

[vonnoobie]

Never hurts to start a program earlier then planned. When one considers the delays that can commonly occur if you start earlier you can either get them when you originally planned to have them or at least midigate the delay.

 

[Redlands18]

Never hurts to start a program earlier then planned. When one considers the delays that can commonly occur if you start earlier you can either get them when you originally planned to have them or at least midigate the delay.

I have to disagree there, it can hurt to bring a program forward because you will have to rearrange your funding. Start Air 6002 early and another program will have to be put back. All that has happened so far is the RAAF has asked for Information on possible Platforms from Aviation Companies who would have been expecting something sooner or later anyway.

 

[Todjaeger]

I have to disagree there, it can hurt to bring a program forward because you will have to rearrange your funding. Start Air 6002 early and another program will have to be put back. All that has happened so far is the RAAF has asked for Information on possible Platforms from Aviation Companies who would have been expecting something sooner or later anyway.

Not really. The first few years of a programme usually involve planning. Getting that planning started earlier can enable contract signing earlier which would in turn likely cause funding to be required sooner. OTOH the date of contract signing and/or start of production and delivery could be left alone.

One of the important things to keep in mind is just how long some of this stuff really takes. At one point about a decade ago, a specific DT member who was involved in ADF planning and procurement mentioned that Australia was averaging a 14 year time frame between the start date for new projects, and the in-service date. As things stand now, it seems like major projects usually take about a two year time frame between the issuance of a RFT, and contract signing. Given that getting to where there is a RFT requires a number of phases be completed first, getting more of what needs to be done out of the way to give more time if/when needed for other phases of a project, I am not terribly fussed about getting a head start on things.