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

StingrayOZ

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
SammyC said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
S

Stampede

Well-Known Member
SammyC said:
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
Last edited:
S

SammyC

Well-Known Member
Stampede said:
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
Click to expand...
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).
 
Last edited:
S

Stampede

Well-Known Member
SammyC said:
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).
Click to expand...
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
 
S

SammyC

Well-Known Member
Stampede said:
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
Click to expand...
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

Going Boeing

Well-Known Member
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

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Going Boeing said:
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
Click to expand...
As per post 1118 onwards in the military aviation thread, a C-17 production restart is very unlikely albeit probably needed.
 
H

hauritz

Well-Known Member
SammyC said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
S

Stampede

Well-Known Member
hauritz said:
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
H

hauritz

Well-Known Member
Morgo said:
Pete Hegseth apparently wants to curtail the planned USAF E7 buy as they think it can be replaced by space based ISR:

Boeing defence chief optimistic about prospects for US E-7 acquisition

Seems bonkers to me, but if they go down that route I hope Marles is on the phone to Boeing saying we’ll happily take some of those production slots.
Click to expand...
Australia has its own plans to replace the Wedgetails with AIR7002 Phase 1 starting in 2029. I have a feeling that will be a long, drawn out program that will involve networking a mix of satellites, UAVs, crewed aircraft and other land, air and sea assets. This isn't something that will be achieved overnight and could literally take decades to evolve. In Australia's case the Wedgetails could operate for another 20 years or more but the US really doesn't have that luxury of time.

In the case of a fully networked ISR system I would have thought the Wedgetail would still have a big role to play. The recent test of Wedgetails operating their own fight of MQ-28s should really have made this pretty obvious. This would potentially give a single Wedgetail accompanied with ISR equipped Ghostbats an extraordinary sensor reach.
 
Last edited:
S

Stampede

Well-Known Member
hauritz said:
Australia has its own plans to replace the Wedgetails with AIR7002 Phase 1 starting in 2029. I have a feeling that will be a long, drawn out program that will involve networking a mix of satellites, UAVs, crewed aircraft and other land, air and sea assets. This isn't something that will be achieved overnight and could literally take decades to evolve. In Australia's case the Wedgetails could operate for another 20 years or more but the US really doesn't have that luxury of time.

In the case of a fully networked ISR system I would have thought the Wedgetail would still have a big role to play. The recent test of Wedgetails operating their own fight of MQ-28s should really have made this pretty obvious. This would potentially give a single Wedgetail accompanied with ISR equipped Ghostbats an extraordinary sensor reach.
Click to expand...
Wedgetail with its own self defence operating with accompanying MQ-28s

Cheers S
 
Takao

Takao

The Bunker Group
Stampede said:
Does anyone seriously think it was designed from the start to be just a sensor/ decoy platform.
Click to expand...
Yes. That was the entire point.

Before the 'great strategic minds' and techbro's pushed drones and fail fast crap, the MQ-28 was Loyal Wingman which was always intended as a tech demonstrator - a giant R&D program. That would, hopefully, develop a an armed CCA at the end.

The Department is well aware of tech - and that one cannot click fingers and have it appear. All of this MQ-28 success was developed by the RAAF LW team in 18/19 and the FSP team in 19/20 that funded it.
 
StingrayOZ

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
Takao said:
The Department is well aware of tech - and that one cannot click fingers and have it appear. All of this MQ-28 success was developed by the RAAF LW team in 18/19 and the FSP team in 19/20 that funded it.
Click to expand...
I wonder if Hegseth understands the whole systems and sees beyond the current E7 platform as it is today. IMO its very promising developments at just at the right time.
ShortArm said:
A deployment of E7 Wedgetail to Europe in August Under Op Kudu.
Click to expand...
Again highlights the value of this platform, that NATO nations are requesting it. I wonder if Poland is interested in acquiring platforms themselves, while NATO is getting some, it's not the same, Turkey is in NATO and acquired platforms.
I wonder if they will be based in Poland or back in Germany.

Part of the platform is its ability to act as a deterrence. Having something physically flying scanning skys being seen to be doing its job.
 
StingrayOZ

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
StingrayOZ said:
I wonder if they will be based in Poland or back in Germany.
Click to expand...
Poland..
.
We have been able to announce that we will be deploying an E-7 Wedgetail to Poland in August for a three month rotation, which will help support Ukraine in its struggle and defiance against Russia. There will be about 100 Australian personnel who come with that asset
Click to expand...
I wonder if it will be at Lask?
 
S

swerve

Super Moderator
StingrayOZ said:
Again highlights the value of this platform, that NATO nations are requesting it. I wonder if Poland is interested in acquiring platforms themselves, while NATO is getting some, it's not the same, Turkey is in NATO and acquired platforms.
Click to expand...
The UK, France & Italy also have their own AEW aircraft within NATO, & ince it joined NATO Sweden has decided to go ahead with acquiring GlobalEye to replace its old SAAB 340 Erieyes, of which Ukraine (a gift) & Poland each have two now. So, Poland already has platforms, & may want to keep its own capability.
 
H

hauritz

Well-Known Member
StingrayOZ said:
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.
Click to expand...
According to this blogger the MQ-28 does infact have an internal weapons bay with the claim that the planned missile launch will in fact be released from an internal weapons bay.

 
S

Stampede

Well-Known Member
S

SammyC

Well-Known Member
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top