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

[StingrayOZ]

A missile could be fitted in an internal bay, however that would still require redesigning the fuselage to manage the loading. From what you are saying bob, that could be outside the wheel enclosure on each side rather than the centerline.

I think a full internal bay for large internal weapons is unlikely, it may be possible to mount weapons in a recessed way, perhaps with a discarding fairing. Maybe brimstone or hellfire or spear3. Maybe for SEAD type missions.

I don't see it being a truck carrying all the munitions for a F-35. That would need to be a completely different platform. I don't see it being an A2A platform either.

 

[Stampede]

It's an interesting turn around from 6 months ago where an armed MQ-28 was off the table from the Government. I wonder what changed this view. Nice to hear that its funding has been assured, that was a concern. Hopefully it's proper funding with a decent budget.

The problem is the MQ-28 is still a lightweight drone and its carrying capacity is low, I think about 500kg. AMRAAMs weigh about 150kg, so a pair doesn't leave much capacity for a nose sensor package. Missiles would still need to be slung externally, so that will impact range/speed and stealth.

It seems to have the smarts, just not the body.

There does not seem to be much available on what the second gen MQ-28 will look like. I wonder if it will be released with a larger frame and engine for increased carrying capability.

Does anyone seriously think it was designed from the start to be just a sensor/ decoy platform.
No ,it was always going to have an armed capability.
As to how much armed capability well that is part of the evolution for this teaming realm.

Like all bits of kit cost will play a part
Too big too capable too costly it becomes something unaffordable and unsustainable.

Numbers and attrition will be part of the calculous

MQ28 has a big future

Cheers S

 

[SammyC]

Does anyone seriously think it was designed from the start to be just a sensor/ decoy platform.
No ,it was always going to have an armed capability.
As to how much armed capability well that is part of the evolution for this teaming realm.

Like all bits of kit cost will play a part
Too big too capable too costly.

Numbers and attrition will be part of the calculous

MQ28 has a big future

Cheers S

Don't get me wrong, I am a big fan of the ghost bat, with much the same end point in mind. I just see more of an iterative approach to its capabilities.

I see its strategy a little differently.

My view is that Ghost Bat gen one is a test platform designed specifically to develop an AI brain that can autonomously operate an airframe with minimal human input (so, observe its environment, fly itself without crashing, take general orders, execute) and integrate with multiple platforms (ground station, F35, P8, E7 etc). So its a fancy computer strapped to a basic airframe. Nothing more.

It seems it has achieved that objective quite well, and this is what sets it apart from every other drone out there. As an added bonus, it is fairly close to being capable of performing as an autonomous ISR platform in a slightly upgraded and hardened form, which looks like what the gen twos later this year will be. We could kick off a production line of these very soon, so next year. Perhaps a simple helfire style missile could be attached for testing purposes.

I can see this being easily upgraded into a combat platform using the same AI computer. It needs a bigger airframe to carry the weight, software integration for AIM9/120 or JSM missiles, plus all the pylon infrastructure for missile hook up (which is a lot of stuff and heavy in its own right). But all of that is existing technology and would be a relatively straightforward gen three design. We could perhaps see prototypes in 12-18 months, with the above gen two production line switching over in say two-3 years time.

I think it is reasonable to expect that the gen twos (ISR) and gen threes (missile trucks) will exist and operate together.

If I align this to the Governments overarching crawl, walk, run strategy: the current gen one Ghost Bat is crawl (develop the AI), walk is the gen two (basic useful functionality that can be field deployed now), run (beefing it up with an attack capability).

 

[Stampede]

Don't get me wrong, I am a big fan of the ghost bat, with much the same end point in mind. I just see more of an iterative approach to its capabilities.

I see its strategy a little differently.

My view is that Ghost Bat gen one is a test platform designed specifically to develop an AI brain that can autonomously operate an airframe with minimal human input (so, observe its environment, fly itself without crashing, take general orders, execute) and integrate with multiple platforms (ground station, F35, P8, E7 etc). So its a fancy computer strapped to a basic airframe. Nothing more.

It seems it has achieved that objective quite well, and this is what sets it apart from every other drone out there. As an added bonus, it is fairly close to being capable of performing as an autonomous ISR platform in a slightly upgraded and hardened form, which looks like what the gen twos later this year will be. We could kick off a production line of these very soon, so next year. Perhaps a simple helfire style missile could be attached for testing purposes.

I can see this being easily upgraded into a combat platform using the same AI computer. It needs a bigger airframe to carry the weight, software integration for AIM9/120 or JSM missiles, plus all the pylon infrastructure for missile hook up (which is a lot of stuff and heavy in its own right). But all of that is existing technology and would be a relatively straightforward gen three design. We could perhaps see prototypes in 12-18 months, with the above gen two production line switching over in say two-3 years time.

I think it is reasonable to expect that the gen twos (ISR) and gen threes (missile trucks) will exist and operate together.

If I align this to the Governments overarching crawl, walk, run strategy: the current gen one Ghost Bat is crawl (develop the AI), walk is the gen two (basic useful functionality that can be field deployed now), run (beefing it up with an attack capability).

Agree
It’s an evolving space
Will be interesting as to the growth in size if any for the next generation platforms.
That said I’d be surprised if the current shape
does not have some load capacity.
Small stuff not big stuff!!!

Cheers S

 

[SammyC]

Agree
It’s an evolving space
Will be interesting as to the growth in size if any for the next generation platforms.
That said I’d be surprised if the current shape
does not have some load capacity.
Small stuff not big stuff!!!

Cheers S

Yes the gen 1 (and probably gen 2) has a payload capacity, but (according to public sources) its only 500kg, and that includes the nose cone payload (which I suspect is in the order of a couple of hundred kgs by itself). A single AIM120 is about 160kg, so it will tap out pretty quickly, particularly once all the heavy pylon equipment is installed. An AIM9X is about 85kg, and a hellfire is 45kg, so it might have the ability to carry something like that at a pinch. Not as usefull though as an AMRAAM or JSM.

The small stuff v big stuff discussion is an interesting one.

While I've seen, like every one else, the devastation of tiny cheap drones in Ukraine, I'm less certain how that same technique plays out in our environment.

The Ukrainian drone war is, for the most part, over a strip of in the order of 10-30km around the front. It's a land war and it is predominantly short ranged. Small 5-20kg, 30 minute drones with explosives in the few kgs, on fibre optic lines or simple AI, all do extremely well in that environment.

Unless something goes seriously wrong and we are fighting on the Australian mainland (and then we just leave it to the crocs, snakes and spiders) our likely conflict region is at sea or in archipelagos and the front is likely to be in the hundreds of kms deep. Drones will need range and the ability to independently scan complex terrain, and control systems like fibre optic leads would not be practical.

So I think our drone design is going to be different and I think it is going to be forced to be larger styles by necessity. Now I'll balance that by saying large is not the same as exquisit and it still needs to be a mass produced lower cost approach.

 

[Going Boeing]

Totally different subject, but I’ve always thought that the RAAF should have bought 4 more C-17’s before the production line closed and now, they might get another opportunity.

Boeing has announced that they are in the early stages of investigating a potential restart of the C-17 production line. If it does come to fruition, it would be a great opportunity to purchase some more which would reduce the workload for the current fleet and thus extend the service life of the existing aircraft. This is quite important as there’s no other aircraft in that category/size becoming available in the foreseeable future.

Boeing In Talks To Restart C-17 Production

 

[John Fedup]

Totally different subject, but I’ve always thought that the RAAF should have bought 4 more C-17’s before the production line closed and now, they might get another opportunity.

Boeing has announced that they are in the early stages of investigating a potential restart of the C-17 production line. If it does come to fruition, it would be a great opportunity to purchase some more which would reduce the workload for the current fleet and thus extend the service life of the existing aircraft. This is quite important as there’s no other aircraft in that category/size becoming available in the foreseeable future.

Boeing In Talks To Restart C-17 Production

As per post 1118 onwards in the military aviation thread, a C-17 production restart is very unlikely albeit probably needed.

 

[hauritz]

Yes the gen 1 (and probably gen 2) has a payload capacity, but (according to public sources) its only 500kg, and that includes the nose cone payload (which I suspect is in the order of a couple of hundred kgs by itself). A single AIM120 is about 160kg, so it will tap out pretty quickly, particularly once all the heavy pylon equipment is installed. An AIM9X is about 85kg, and a hellfire is 45kg, so it might have the ability to carry something like that at a pinch. Not as usefull though as an AMRAAM or JSM.

The small stuff v big stuff discussion is an interesting one.

While I've seen, like every one else, the devastation of tiny cheap drones in Ukraine, I'm less certain how that same technique plays out in our environment.

The Ukrainian drone war is, for the most part, over a strip of in the order of 10-30km around the front. It's a land war and it is predominantly short ranged. Small 5-20kg, 30 minute drones with explosives in the few kgs, on fibre optic lines or simple AI, all do extremely well in that environment.

Unless something goes seriously wrong and we are fighting on the Australian mainland (and then we just leave it to the crocs, snakes and spiders) our likely conflict region is at sea or in archipelagos and the front is likely to be in the hundreds of kms deep. Drones will need range and the ability to independently scan complex terrain, and control systems like fibre optic leads would not be practical.

So I think our drone design is going to be different and I think it is going to be forced to be larger styles by necessity. Now I'll balance that by saying large is not the same as exquisit and it still needs to be a mass produced lower cost approach.

Developing the AI is the important part. If done properly you should be able to quickly go ahead and use it in just about anything.

Look at a defence manufacturer such as Anduril for example. There whole company is really built around their Lattice AI concept and they have built an entire family of products around it.

What developing the Ghost Bat really gives Australia is an infinite number of pilots that will require no training, will work for nothing, fly 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and would happily sacrifice themselves should the situation require it.

Going into the 2030s Australia will need to replace a number of aircraft types as well as bring in new capabilities that will require a range of different airframes. It wouldn’t surprise me if most of these were uncrewed, domestically designed and built vehicles built around the Ghost Bat’s AI framework.

 

[Stampede]

Developing the AI is the important part. If done properly you should be able to quickly go ahead and use it in just about anything.

Look at a defence manufacturer such as Anduril for example. There whole company is really built around their Lattice AI concept and they have built an entire family of products around it.

What developing the Ghost Bat really gives Australia is an infinite number of pilots that will require no training, will work for nothing, fly 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and would happily sacrifice themselves should the situation require it.

Going into the 2030s Australia will need to replace a number of aircraft types as well as bring in new capabilities that will require a range of different airframes. It wouldn’t surprise me if most of these were uncrewed, domestically designed and built vehicles built around the Ghost Bat’s AI framework.

It will be interesting as to what the structure of fighter/bomber Sqns look like going forward.
Does a F35 Squadron stay the day size in manned aircraft numbers with integrated Ghost Bat
For the later what are their numbers?
One for one to each manned F35 or a different ratio.
If more then these are very big Squadrons

Which suggests to me more Squadrons with fewer manned aircraft
That’s a big FAAF

suggest we need to look at tanker numbers

Cheers S