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

[John Fedup]

This Breaking Defense article indicates that Lockheed’s proposal for an upgraded “Ferrari“ F-35 fitted with a number of 6th Generation systems is gaining traction in Washington & US Defence circles and this could have implications as a potential replacement for the RAAF’s Rhinos & Growlers - the timing should work well to obtain a replacement type that is a significant increase in capability but have some commonality with the existing F-35 fleet. I understand that the RAAF still has options on 28 more F-35’s so it would be great to take delivery of them in the Ferrari version.

“Of the about 2,300 F-35s yet to be delivered to the jet’s customer base, Taiclet estimated that anywhere from 1,000 to 1,500 aircraft could be delivered as the “fifth-gen plus” version, even if export restrictions prohibit international buyers from being able to purchase that configuration. Upgrades for those jets could include new weapons, an improved stealth coating and potentially a more advanced engine, he said”

Some of these systems could potentially be retrofitted to the existing F-35’s as part of a mid-life upgrade thus increasing commonality and decreasing logistics costs.

LM is very late with TR3 and block 4 and the ECU, wtf knows when that will happen. Now LM is promoting a 5.5 version of the F-35 with 80% of the F-47 capabilities…arriving sometime after Elon’s landing on Mars

 

[Takao]

Exactly.

At some point, I'd like Lockheed to deliver what we ordered - a fighter than can do some strike and is capable of fighting a peer threat. I get the F-35 is an effective fighter, but my gosh, it's a very deep black hole of finance with questionable return

 

[John Fedup]

Exactly.

At some point, I'd like Lockheed to deliver what we ordered - a fighter than can do some strike and is capable of fighting a peer threat. I get the F-35 is an effective fighter, but my gosh, it's a very deep black hole of finance with questionable return

Sadly true but there is no other viable choice for confronting the J-20 and J-35 not to mention pending future Chinese jets until GCAP and the F47 arrive. The latter may not even be offered.

 

[InterestedParty]

This looks awesome

It's very interesting just watching the pilot's head and eye movements, he only looked down once or twice for a brief moment. Those helmets must be really good

 

[Morgo]

Australia could do quite well with Ghost Bat. It is a rapidly maturing system at a time when a lot of countries will be looking at off the shelf solutions that can be bought into service quickly. Its main competitors would seem to be Anduril and General Atomic but neither of those companies have the experience Boeing possesses and their projects are running years behind the Ghost Bat.

Any idea what the split of IP ownership is between CoA and Boeing? I presume we, again, have paid for all of the development but own none of the IP, just like Wedgetail. So we won’t benefit (aside from perhaps some manufacturing jobs) from any foreign sales, unless there are some rebates / development refunds in the contract.

 

[south]

jj

Something I noticed. Putting aside the impractibility of a touch screen display in a fighter, the video does seem to indicate that you do need some sort of mission controller in the backseat. Not a problem for the Growlers and Rhinos, or even aircraft such as the Wedgetail and Poseidon but you have to wonder about aircraft such as the F-35. I couldn't find information as to whether or not 6th gen fighter such as the F-47 or GCAP fighters will have two seats or will rely on some sort of virtual assistant to take workload off the pilot. Of course the more autonomous aircraft you have the more complex battle management becomes.

Touchscreens aren’t impractical- as first shown by the F-35 and increasingly new build/upgraded 4th Gen, such as the F-15EX with its large area display, the Block III Super Hornet, and a modification proposed for the Eurofghter typhoon.

The utility of using a single seat fighter will depend on workload - which all modern fighters are designed to lower. Of course , Boeing had a vested interest in showing the two seat F-15EX.

Exactly.

At some point, I'd like Lockheed to deliver what we ordered - a fighter than can do some strike and is capable of fighting a peer threat. I get the F-35 is an effective fighter, but my gosh, it's a very deep black hole of finance with questionable return

It is expensive - rbut so is losing Air control. The other problem is that the threat has evolved - significantly in the last decade. Current Block 3 F-35 is capable of fighting the peer threat - no other available system has the required lethality and survivability; as you noted it is an effective fighter. Despite the continued protestation - it’s also more than capable of strike including in contested environments - albeit with limited standoff. Further it provides a Significant SEAD/DEAD capability - enabling other air assets. .

Standoff weapons and the remainder of the block 4 improvements will come with time. Just as Hunter ($45Bn) or SSN ($350+ Bn) will.

 

[Takao]

It is expensive - rbut so is losing Air control. The other problem is that the threat has evolved - significantly in the last decade. Current Block 3 F-35 is capable of fighting the peer threat - no other available system has the required lethality and survivability; as you noted it is an effective fighter. Despite the continued protestation - it’s also more than capable of strike including in contested environments - albeit with limited standoff. Further it provides a Significant SEAD/DEAD capability - enabling other air assets. .

Standoff weapons and the remainder of the block 4 improvements will come with time. Just as Hunter ($45Bn) or SSN ($350+ Bn) will.

I'm aware of the importance of air control, but if we pour all the money into the fighter force we negate the things that will actually win the war. No point in air control if you don't have the land or maritime forces to use it; nor the air lift to move it. And I'm sorry, but USAF or IAF F-35's fighting an ISIS air defence system is a laughable example of a peer threat. The peer threat is the PLA - and it's been designing itself to fight an airpower focused, 5th generation force.

The GAO report isn't particularly friendly, especially to early adopters who (depending how you read footnote 13) may never get some or most of their aircraft to Block 4. L-M is consistently late, and they've been force to raise costs, reduce scope and shift delivery to the right by at least 5 years. So, again:

At some point, I'd like Lockheed to deliver what we ordered - a fighter than can do some strike and is capable of fighting a peer threat. I get the F-35 is an effective fighter, but my gosh, it's a very deep black hole of finance with questionable return

We cannot afford all of the capabilities of a modern military. We don't run heavy bombers, significant space based assets, significant industry and the like. We rely on our allies, notably the US, to provide most of that. At some point, there is going to have to be a discussion about if we can afford 3 Sqn of fighters, let alone one. Augustine 16th law is still on track to be proven, aircraft continue to cost more and the tech needed to be a 6th or onwards generation fighter is not going to be inline with today's cost.

Economics is as much, arguable more, of a feeder to strategy than kit

 

[hauritz]

Any idea what the split of IP ownership is between CoA and Boeing? I presume we, again, have paid for all of the development but own none of the IP, just like Wedgetail. So we won’t benefit (aside from perhaps some manufacturing jobs) from any foreign sales, unless there are some rebates / development refunds in the contract.

I can’t say for sure but Boeing Australia is a distinct legal entity which means that the IP belongs to Boeing Australia. From my very loose understanding of company law it means that all profits come back to Boeing Australia before being redistributed to its parent company.

From a taxation perspective it means the Australian Government gets its cut through taxation.

 

[seaspear]

Should Australia have legislation with Boeing Australia in sharing its technology development with its parent company as per Rolls Royce in America ,I understand the legislation there stops Rolls Royce America from divulging to its parent company some of the technology developed for American military forces

 

[Volkodav]

I'm aware of the importance of air control, but if we pour all the money into the fighter force we negate the things that will actually win the war. No point in air control if you don't have the land or maritime forces to use it; nor the air lift to move it. And I'm sorry, but USAF or IAF F-35's fighting an ISIS air defence system is a laughable example of a peer threat. The peer threat is the PLA - and it's been designing itself to fight an airpower focused, 5th generation force.

The GAO report isn't particularly friendly, especially to early adopters who (depending how you read footnote 13) may never get some or most of their aircraft to Block 4. L-M is consistently late, and they've been force to raise costs, reduce scope and shift delivery to the right by at least 5 years. So, again:



We cannot afford all of the capabilities of a modern military. We don't run heavy bombers, significant space based assets, significant industry and the like. We rely on our allies, notably the US, to provide most of that. At some point, there is going to have to be a discussion about if we can afford 3 Sqn of fighters, let alone one. Augustine 16th law is still on track to be proven, aircraft continue to cost more and the tech needed to be a 6th or onwards generation fighter is not going to be inline with today's cost.

Economics is as much, arguable more, of a feeder to strategy than kit

My take on this is the F-35 is more than just a fighter, and much more than just an air defence asset or strike platform. It's ISR capabilities are game changing, imo it would be worth getting F-35Bs to operate from the Canberras for that alone.

The greatest risk with it is that we will not have enough of them, and that they may not be available where we need them to do what we need, when we need it.

Another risk is will the capability of the platform outstrip the capability of the individual pilot? i.e. the burden of gaining and maintaining currency on everything the platform can do becomes too onerous for the existing training pipeline, career paths and doctrine?

Throw in controlling loyal wingmen UCAVs etc. how is one person going to manage it all?

This supports having more aircraft, more pilots more squadrons and perhaps a level of specialisation within different squadrons with the ability to pivot the larger force as the strategic situation requires.

A bit of a stretch but an analogy that comes to mind is the infantry battalion and how in WWII individual Commonwealth battalions rerolled not just from line infantry to motorised, mechanised and armoured, but also to parachute, glider, commando, marine, reconnaissance, armoured reconnaissance, some even became tank battalions before switching back to infantry as the needs for concentrated armour reduced.

To me the F-35 squadrons, like, but to a lesser extent, the P-8 squadrons, are the closest thing the RAAF has to the versatility of infantry battalions. They can't do everything all at once, but they can pivot with appropriate lead time and planning.

The requirement however is there is enough of them to maintain core skills, and have cadres of specialists to facilitate any required pivot rapidly and effectively.

I should add that I see the Mogami GPFs in a similar light, an effective general purpose force that can pivot into specialist roles when the need arises.

 

[hauritz]

My take on this is the F-35 is more than just a fighter, and much more than just an air defence asset or strike platform. It's ISR capabilities are game changing, imo it would be worth getting F-35Bs to operate from the Canberras for that alone.

The greatest risk with it is that we will not have enough of them, and that they may not be available where we need them to do what we need, when we need it.

Another risk is will the capability of the platform outstrip the capability of the individual pilot? i.e. the burden of gaining and maintaining currency on everything the platform can do becomes too onerous for the existing training pipeline, career paths and doctrine?

Throw in controlling loyal wingmen UCAVs etc. how is one person going to manage it all?

This supports having more aircraft, more pilots more squadrons and perhaps a level of specialisation within different squadrons with the ability to pivot the larger force as the strategic situation requires.

A bit of a stretch but an analogy that comes to mind is the infantry battalion and how in WWII individual Commonwealth battalions rerolled not just from line infantry to motorised, mechanised and armoured, but also to parachute, glider, commando, marine, reconnaissance, armoured reconnaissance, some even became tank battalions before switching back to infantry as the needs for concentrated armour reduced.

To me the F-35 squadrons, like, but to a lesser extent, the P-8 squadrons, are the closest thing the RAAF has to the versatility of infantry battalions. They can't do everything all at once, but they can pivot with appropriate lead time and planning.

The requirement however is there is enough of them to maintain core skills, and have cadres of specialists to facilitate any required pivot rapidly and effectively.

I should add that I see the Mogami GPFs in a similar light, an effective general purpose force that can pivot into specialist roles when the need arises.

Controlling loyal wingman and UCAVs won't be a straightforward task. It will probably require a complete doctrinal change as to how we employ air power. Imagine a situation where you have hundreds of drones operating at the same time. Some will be managed from the cockpit or some other airborne platform, some from ground stations or ships, some operating autonomously and everything will be networked together exchanging information. Even when/if the MQ-28 becomes operational it could take many more years to integrate them.

Just all that extra air traffic you will need to deal with will be a challenge in itself. They will require maintainence, fuel, command and control, and of course the more you scale things up the more complex it gets. There is a big chance of course that Australia will be the first to employ these things which means we will have to work out a lot of this stuff by ourselves.

Cockpit or Command Center? C2 Options for Collaborative Combat Aircraft

The future of airpower hinges on the U.S. Air Force’s ability to integrate autonomous drones into manned formations. This analysis explores the trade-offs between cockpit and command center–based control in shaping the next era of combat operations.

www.csis.org

 

[seaspear]

The Ghost Bat also is quite capable of being able to be operated with other manned aircraft like Wedgetail ,KC-30A and FA/18 providing some protection and capability ,Im not sure if the Poseidon is to be included in the aircraft but these aircraft all have more than one crewmen certainly having larger aircraft that are unarmed and not stealthy having these as some escort could make sense with the long range of the Ghost bat

 

[MickB]

Thinking the events in Poland recently, with the mass scramble of expensive to operate, comparatively limited ranged fighter jets to defend its airspace from drone incursions.
Would it make sense to invest in a lower cost ,cheaper to operate longer ranged alternative.
Most likely armed with the APKWS,
Some options that come to mind are a derivative of turbo prop light strike aircraft or light fighter/ jet trainer aircraft.
These could also be used in their designed role in more permissive environments,

The option I think about most is that of a repurposed recently retired Orion P3 aircraft.
It would be capable of using multiple crew to operate a range of sensor and targeting equipment and engaging multiple drones at once,
Its long range provides persistence and the ability to cover a large area.
Being airborne allows it to move to cover alternate locations mush faster than a ground based defence,
The large number of underwing hard points will allow for a large amount and variety of anti drone weaponry,

Its large range will also allow coverage of naval task groups or maritime choke points, (think Red Sea)
In this role the weapons bay could carry a range of loitering munitions to allow the P3 to engage sea drones or fast attack craft from outside the range of possible manpads,

 

[old faithful]

My take on this is the F-35 is more than just a fighter, and much more than just an air defence asset or strike platform. It's ISR capabilities are game changing, imo it would be worth getting F-35Bs to operate from the Canberras for that alone.

The greatest risk with it is that we will not have enough of them, and that they may not be available where we need them to do what we need, when we need it.

Another risk is will the capability of the platform outstrip the capability of the individual pilot? i.e. the burden of gaining and maintaining currency on everything the platform can do becomes too onerous for the existing training pipeline, career paths and doctrine?

Throw in controlling loyal wingmen UCAVs etc. how is one person going to manage it all?

This supports having more aircraft, more pilots more squadrons and perhaps a level of specialisation within different squadrons with the ability to pivot the larger force as the strategic situation requires.

A bit of a stretch but an analogy that comes to mind is the infantry battalion and how in WWII individual Commonwealth battalions rerolled not just from line infantry to motorised, mechanised and armoured, but also to parachute, glider, commando, marine, reconnaissance, armoured reconnaissance, some even became tank battalions before switching back to infantry as the needs for concentrated armour reduced.

To me the F-35 squadrons, like, but to a lesser extent, the P-8 squadrons, are the closest thing the RAAF has to the versatility of infantry battalions. They can't do everything all at once, but they can pivot with appropriate lead time and planning.

The requirement however is there is enough of them to maintain core skills, and have cadres of specialists to facilitate any required pivot rapidly and effectively.

I should add that I see the Mogami GPFs in a similar light, an effective general purpose force that can pivot into specialist roles when the need arises.

I was all for getting F35Bs for the Canberra's, however more knowledgeable people explained that the limitations were the amount of fuel and munitions that could be carried on board could really only sustain around 8 of them for a week.
Not sure if that's accurate or not, but having a mobile run way has to be a game changer and if money is suddenly available to make the nessasary changes, then it may help fill the gap between the Hunters, AUKUS subs and mogamis.

 

[south]

I'm aware of the importance of air control, but if we pour all the money into the fighter force we negate the things that will actually win the war. No point in air control if you don't have the land or maritime forces to use it; nor the air lift to move it. And I'm sorry, but USAF or IAF F-35's fighting an ISIS air defence system is a laughable example of a peer threat. The peer threat is the PLA - and it's been designing itself to fight an airpower focused, 5th generation force.

The GAO report isn't particularly friendly, especially to early adopters who (depending how you read footnote 13) may never get some or most of their aircraft to Block 4. L-M is consistently late, and they've been force to raise costs, reduce scope and shift delivery to the right by at least 5 years. So, again:

We cannot afford all of the capabilities of a modern military. We don't run heavy bombers, significant space based assets, significant industry and the like. We rely on our allies, notably the US, to provide most of that. At some point, there is going to have to be a discussion about if we can afford 3 Sqn of fighters, let alone one. Augustine 16th law is still on track to be proven, aircraft continue to cost more and the tech needed to be a 6th or onwards generation fighter is not going to be inline with today's cost.

Economics is as much, arguable more, of a feeder to strategy than kit

Firstly — nobody besides you has suggested all funding goes to fighters. The integrated force matters, but without air control, Army littoral manoeuvre and RAAF air lift can't happen within tolerable risk.

Secondly — the SEAD/DEAD article was about highlighting the F-35’s latent role as the USAF’s premier SAM killer. The PLA builds its doctrine around mobile SAMs; the F-35 is extremely capable at finding and killing these systems.

GAO’s leading headline: “DOD’s F-35 has unique capabilities crucial to U.S. national security.” Block 3F already delivers strike capability (GBU-39/12/31, AGM-154) and is the only RAAF asset with the survivability and lethality to contest the air domain. Nobody is excusing LM or JPO - but Block 4 will get there.

On cost — show me a generational change in any domain that hasn’t gone up. New capability costs more. Hunters are at least an order of magnitude more than ANZACs. M1A2 SEPv3 is 6x a 1990 M1A1. UH-60M costs more than an S-70. That’s the pattern across the board.

The biggest single budget shock since 2020? It's not ACG.

 

[south]

Thinking the events in Poland recently, with the mass scramble of expensive to operate, comparatively limited ranged fighter jets to defend its airspace from drone incursions.
Would it make sense to invest in a lower cost ,cheaper to operate longer ranged alternative.
Most likely armed with the APKWS,
Some options that come to mind are a derivative of turbo prop light strike aircraft or light fighter/ jet trainer aircraft.
These could also be used in their designed role in more permissive environments,

The option I think about most is that of a repurposed recently retired Orion P3 aircraft.
It would be capable of using multiple crew to operate a range of sensor and targeting equipment and engaging multiple drones at once,
Its long range provides persistence and the ability to cover a large area.
Being airborne allows it to move to cover alternate locations mush faster than a ground based defence,
The large number of underwing hard points will allow for a large amount and variety of anti drone weaponry,

Its large range will also allow coverage of naval task groups or maritime choke points, (think Red Sea)
In this role the weapons bay could carry a range of loitering munitions to allow the P3 to engage sea drones or fast attack craft from outside the range of possible manpads,

My understanding is the P-3's are dead (fatigue). There is no one left to fly or maintain them - they have all moved onto P-8.

A superior solution would be something like a PC-21 with a targeting pod (or AT-6, or the AT-802). The Ukrainians are even using Yak-52 with a machine gunner firing out the rear cockpit against slower speed drones.

 

[MickB]

My understanding is the P-3's are dead (fatigue). There is no one left to fly or maintain them - they have all moved onto P-8.

A superior solution would be something like a PC-21 with a targeting pod (or AT-6, or the AT-802). The Ukrainians are even using Yak-52 with a machine gunner firing out the rear cockpit against slower speed drones.

I agree that modified light attack/ training aircraft are one option, as i stated above.

The two final RAAF P3s did not retire until 2023 so I would think that there would still be some institutional knowledge.
As i understand it P 3s are currently still in service with Japan and with several other nations, slowly being retired as P 8s etc replace them.
So several still in service that can be drawn upon. Also refurbished P 3s are acting as water bombers. So someone must have learned to maintain then.

If a capability is deemed necessary the resources will be found.

 

[ADMk2]

I agree that modified light attack/ training aircraft are one option, as i stated above.

The two final RAAF P3s did not retire until 2023 so I would think that there would still be some institutional knowledge.
As i understand it P 3s are currently still in service with Japan and with several other nations, slowly being retired as P 8s etc replace them.
So several still in service that can be drawn upon. Also refurbished P 3s are acting as water bombers. So someone must have learned to maintain then.

If a capability is deemed necessary the resources will be found.

Do you think there is any capacity within the Hawk Mk.127 fleet for such a role, in a contingency I mean? I am guessing they are (almost) fully tasked with their training roles (and the semi-regular air displays) but an extra squadron for lower level roles would be a handy boost...

 

[MickB]

Do you think there is any capacity within the Hawk Mk.127 fleet for such a role, in a contingency I mean? I am guessing they are (almost) fully tasked with their training roles (and the semi-regular air displays) but an extra squadron for lower level roles would be a handy boost...

As you suggested, I belive that any additional capability would require additional aircraft.
What numbers it would need I have no idea.

 

[StevoJH]

Do you think there is any capacity within the Hawk Mk.127 fleet for such a role, in a contingency I mean? I am guessing they are (almost) fully tasked with their training roles (and the semi-regular air displays) but an extra squadron for lower level roles would be a handy boost...

Possibly a role for whatever succeeds them.

Wasn’t the RAAF supposed to be starting a program the replace them? I believe the RAF is also looking at replacing theirs.