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

[Ozzy Blizzard]

@rimjaz....

One would hope they would offer F22, because if they didnt we would end up with a 100% F/A-18E/F/G orbat, and that aint good.

Your probably right though, if F35 is cancelled (which is nye impossible) a 2/2 or 3/1 orbat consisting of F/A 22's and F/A-18F/G's would probably be the outcome, which wouldn't be too shabby at all. A single squadron of F22's would probably be all we could afford, although 50/50 would be nice.

By the way nice prose, very direct.

But i hope we either have long range strike aircraft in the future, or f-35bs for the LHD.

As far as a long range 'strike' aircraft, there are some constricting factors. The fact is the region is not the same one it was in the 70's and 80's. Realistic IADS are poping up around the place, in addition to evolved flanker variants, which although seem to be the but of every joke or the villen of every horror story, are very capable platforms and not to be dismissed lightly. What this effectively means is that unless we get something as advanced generationally as F/B 22 or B2 which would be ridiculously expensive, any "long ranged strike" platform will have to be escorted by shorter ranged fighters. This is presicely the problem with the F111 now, it cant survive against a modern air threat so its range is useless. This may indeed be the same for an F/B 22 in its later life, if it ever evntuates. Which means you sacrifice a squadron of fighters that would be needed to gain air superiority, which given the evolveing regional threat is becoming more important that ever. Anyway a JASSM-ER equiped F35A woth tanker support would have comperable combat radius to an F111 without burner (which is not realistic) all in a stealthy package that can achieve air superiority while its at it. Multirole is the name of the game these days IMO, we are sacrificeing air superiority assets by buying dedicated strike platforms and we dont get that much extra capability to offset the loss. Our strike capability and regional deturrent will remain intact with F35A and JASSM, dont wory about that.

 

[Aussie Digger]

@rimjaz....

One would hope they would offer F22, because if they didnt we would end up with a 100% F/A-18E/F/G orbat, and that aint good.

Your probably right though, if F35 is cancelled (which is nye impossible) a 2/2 or 3/1 orbat consisting of F/A 22's and F/A-18F/G's would probably be the outcome, which wouldn't be too shabby at all. A single squadron of F22's would probably be all we could afford, although 50/50 would be nice.

By the way nice prose, very direct.



As far as a long range 'strike' aircraft, there are some constricting factors. The fact is the region is not the same one it was in the 70's and 80's. Realistic IADS are poping up around the place, in addition to evolved flanker variants, which although seem to be the but of every joke or the villen of every horror story, are very capable platforms and not to be dismissed lightly. What this effectively means is that unless we get something as advanced generationally as F/B 22 or B2 which would be ridiculously expensive, any "long ranged strike" platform will have to be escorted by shorter ranged fighters. This is presicely the problem with the F111 now, it cant survive against a modern air threat so its range is useless. This may indeed be the same for an F/B 22 in its later life, if it ever evntuates. Which means you sacrifice a squadron of fighters that would be needed to gain air superiority, which given the evolveing regional threat is becoming more important that ever. Anyway a JASSM-ER equiped F35A woth tanker support would have comperable combat radius to an F111 without burner (which is not realistic) all in a stealthy package that can achieve air superiority while its at it. Multirole is the name of the game these days IMO, we are sacrificeing air superiority assets by buying dedicated strike platforms and we dont get that much extra capability to offset the loss. Our strike capability and regional deturrent will remain intact with F35A and JASSM, dont wory about that.

If the war in Iraq begins to "die down" as the current signs appear to indicate (first US troop withdrawal announced etc) budget pressures on the USG will drop and more funding will be available for platforms that need replacing or "refreshing" due to extensive operational service.

Current platforms such as F-16, F/A-18A/B/C/D are probably not going to receive huge investment in such a climate and F-35 would seem to be far more secure in of itself.

Personally I think there is next to nil chance of the F-35 being scrapped entirely. Legacy 70's and 80's fighters as good as they currently are capability wise, are simply wearing out. Investing in evolved variants might be less risky, but won't provide the "next generation" capability USAF/USN/USMC will be looking for, once it's done with the current state of affairs.

It has already fought a number of wars with these platforms. The US won't want to fight it's next wars with them too...

Plus there is a real possibility of RAAF gaining a 5th combat squadron in years to come. Australian Aviation pointed this out in their recent edition and the "push" will come to enhance RAAF's ability to support the expanded (enhanced) land force...

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

The possibility of F35 not making squadron service in 1000+ numbers is really, really unlikely IMO. 381 F22's are also a realistic possibility. Congress wont want to sacrifice capability, and the loss of either one of these programes means more than that, not to mention the sunk investment. Nup, i'd put decent money on F35 seeing USAF & RAAF service.

RE the fifth squadron, Thats an interesting development, i just have a couple of questiones. What are the realistic chances do you think and ow exactly would this be structured? Perhaps if another 24 F18F/G's are purchased and the inital 75 F35A bk4's are bought we get 5? Or just the full 100 F35's in adition to the rhino's? MAybe then we can convert a few to growlers if we decide to keep them. Still 5 F35 squadrons and wedgetail is a serious orbat and not to be rooted with.

 

[barra]

Plus there is a real possibility of RAAF gaining a 5th combat squadron in years to come. Australian Aviation pointed this out in their recent edition and the "push" will come to enhance RAAF's ability to support the expanded (enhanced) land force...

This is a very important point, look at the current state of affairs with the effect HUG is having on the size of our combat fleet and the inability to deploy any force because numbers are tight. The folly of buying just 75 F/A-18A/B's has finally been realised, realistically we needed at least 24 extra airframes. I also think that a fifth combat squadron will be the death knell of any F-35B dreams for Navy. With a combat force of @ 120 airframes I can't see any extra fat for more aircraft. Remember that the OCU/Training role will not have duals, they will be the same as all the other frontline fighters, so they could be pressed into combat if need be. :shudder

If the F-35 is cancelled we are pretty much fucked. The Suepr Hornet to penetrate enemy airspace would have to fly around hotspots and use require afterburners to fight its way through. In the real world strike mission the F-35 may have twice the combat radius of the Super Hornet. Thats a massive difference. If the F-35 required one inflight refuelign stop the Super Hornets would need 3 which would be a heavy load for our tankers.

There is a lot of if's and but's there rjmaz1, good planning would negate the need to fly around on afterburner to avoid hotspots. Mixed strike packages with strikers, harm shooters and ew support are the go. Use your intel to avoid known SAM concentrations and your harm shooters can take care of anything else that pops up along the way. Tanking is unavoidable these days, you would want to keep your high value assets far enough away from your enemy so they can't reach out and touch them. RAAF F/A-18 sorties during OIF were routinely between 6-9 hours in duration requiring multiple topups. So a future RAAF combat force would IMO be a mix of F-35A, F/A-18F and HARM armed F/A-18G's also a couple more tankers would be nice.

Cooooeeee!

 

[AGRA]

The fifth squadron? Its already there… The budget for the RAAF for 2010-20 is for five combat squadrons though with gaps as the F-111 is withdrawn and F-35 worked up. The pre-Super Hornet plan was for 6 Sqn to be the first to transition to F-35 as the OCU and then the three Hornet combat squadrons to transition one after the other. 1 Sqn was to convert to F/A-18A/B Hornet and be the capability back up to the introduction of the F-35. 1 Sqn would then convert to whatever Air 6000 Phase 2C acquires, likely to be more F-35s on top of the ~72 acquired under Air 6000 Phase 2A/2B.

With the Super Hornet the Government not only spent $2.8 billion on the 24 aircraft but provided multiple billions for their operation (including personnel) on top of the current RAAF order of battle. The RAAF still has a budget for an OCU and four combat sqns on top of the 24 Super Hornets.

How they manage this process will be interesting to watch. They have the money and the Government go ahead to grow, but they will need to recruit. The RAAF has been performing far better than the other services in retention so hopefully they can do this. How the process is managed will be seen but will probably see the current unit identities retained but with 6 Sqn eventually becoming a full sized F-35 operational squadron (with 2 OCU being the F-35 conversion unit), especially with the Super Hornet OCU capability is held within 1 Sqn – as was the case with 77 Sqn in the Miro-Hornet transition.

 

[AGRA]

www.magpul.com/pdfs/masada_technote.pdf

I stand by my comments re Boeing. I can assure you I am in an excellent position to judge from personal experience.

I should clarify that my comments were aimed at the HUG program in particular and I wasn't taking aim at the ex RAAFies that work for Boeing, quite the opposite. Those people are the people Boeing targets to employ and are uniquely skilled and qualified for the task. My comments were aimed at the people Boeing hires to make up the numbers. If you have such an intimate knowledge of Boeings operations then you will know what I am referring to.

The problem is the boom or bust situation that the Australian defence industry has had to labour through, particularly the defence aerospace side, since 1939. The lack of strategic planning by government and the RAAF for domestic provision of products for air force capability has meant the continuity required to create a highly competent defence aerospace workforce has been lacking.

Why has Boeing and the Hornet Industry Coalition had problems with HUG? Probably has more to do with why Australia didn’t order the AAC A10 “Wamira” advanced trainer in the 1980s. And other similar examples going back to the formation of the Department of Aircraft Production (later GAF and ASTA) in the block of land right beside the existing CAC factory, rather than concentration of effort in the existing factory.

The Wamira project would have provided the workforce needed today to deliver the various projects. This is the hidden cost in ‘cheaper’ buy offshore solutions. Its only through the establishment of a consistent industry that you can develop the project managers, design engineers, quality control mangers, etc. needed to delivery high quality products on time and too budget.

Since the ADF seems intently to be run in such a way that each new generation of commanders has to do something entirely different to the previous then its highly unlikely this boom/bust cycle in industry will go away.

Maybe when some of these projects start running on time and meeting the customers requirements and projected costs then people will stop criticising. Projects like Wedgetail, Vigilaire and HUG come to mind. If you are still upset by my comments, I suggest you build a bridge and get over it.

If the RAAF wanted an AEW&C delivered on time it really only had one option – E2C Hawkeye. Since each of the three Air 5077 contenders were entirely new aircraft/radar configurations and the one we chose was the one offering with an entirely new radar it’s a bit unfair to expect it to be delivered on time. Vigilaire is less defensible, considering all the hard work is being done in the US and by SMEs (effectively). As for HUG, see above.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

JASSM Options

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gene...707.xml&headline=LM Must Fix JASSM This Month

Lockheed Martin has until the end of June to negotiate a get-well plan with the U.S. Air Force for its $5.8 billion stealthy cruise missile program or face full termination.

The Pentagon is already exploring alternatives that include the U.S. Navy's Tactical Tomahawk - arguably an expensive option - and the Standoff Land Attack Missile Expanded Response (SLAM-ER). Foreign options are not off the table, according to Diane Wright, the Pentagon acquisition office's deputy director of air warfare. That could leave the door open to MBDA's Storm Shadow cruise missile.

Now i know this is an old article, and JASSM is looking a bit healthier than it was then. However should the programe fail i was wondering what the options would be for the RAAF. Obviosly any substiute would need to have an anti shipping capability, what do you guys see as the most likely candidate:

Storm Shadow/SCALP-EG: 250km range, LO charechteristsics, 450kg BROACH penitrating warhead, GPS/INS TERPROM and trminal IR guidence, already cleared for launch for F35 and in service with several european air forces.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storm_Shadow

Taurus: 500km+ range, 500kg warhead, IBN GPS/INS and TRN guidensce with terminal IR, purchased by several european air forces.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taurus_missile

SLAM-ER 150+m range, allready in service with the USN, GPS/INS/IR guidence, less risk, but less capability.

http://www.defense-update.com/products/s/slam-er.htm

What do you guys think we will go for of the worst happens?

 

[Aussie Digger]

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gene...707.xml&headline=LM Must Fix JASSM This Month



Now i know this is an old article, and JASSM is looking a bit healthier than it was then. However should the programe fail i was wondering what the options would be for the RAAF. Obviosly any substiute would need to have an anti shipping capability, what do you guys see as the most likely candidate:

Storm Shadow/SCALP-EG: 250km range, LO charechteristsics, 450kg BROACH penitrating warhead, GPS/INS TERPROM and trminal IR guidence, already cleared for launch for F35 and in service with several european air forces.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storm_Shadow

Taurus: 500km+ range, 500kg warhead, IBN GPS/INS and TRN guidensce with terminal IR, purchased by several european air forces.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taurus_missile

SLAM-ER 150+m range, allready in service with the USN, GPS/INS/IR guidence, less risk, but less capability.

http://www.defense-update.com/products/s/slam-er.htm

What do you guys think we will go for of the worst happens?

SLAM-ER without a doubt I'd suggest. The FMS case has already been approved and it has to be the best integrated onto Hornet and Super Hornet out of the possible contenders.

SLAM-ER features a 280k+ range too, not 150k+...

Tauras would have to come in second I'd suggest, given that the Spanish are integrating it onto their Hornets at their own expense. I suspect we could leverage off them and gain what seems to be a quite capable missile. It's range is closer to 350k's as I remember from the ADF releases before JASSM was picked, rather than the 500k's wiki seems to state...

 

[kato]

It's range is closer to 350k's as I remember from the ADF releases before JASSM was picked, rather than the 500k's wiki seems to state...

Both numbers are correct. The range of Taurus/KEPD-350 is "350+ km minimum guaranteed" with terrain-following, waypoints, maneuvers etc, and 400-500 km "maximum" for a straight line forward to target (which you won't have in reality).

 

[swerve]

... [B]Storm Shadow/SCALP-EG:[/B...url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storm_Shadow
...

Like the Taurus KEPD 350, the quoted Storm Shadow range is distance to target, assuming an indirect route to avoid defences & giving away the likely target. Flight distance, & hence theoretical maximum range is greater. And the official figure isn't 250 km, it's "More than" 250km, with rumours of it being significantly more - though less than Taurus.

Taurus is being developed into different versions.

http://www.taurus-systems.de/html/missilesystem.html

There has also been talk of an extended-range version, up to about 800 km.

 

[barra]

The fifth squadron? Its already there…

I didn't think that these plans re numbers of sqns/aircraft were as concrete as you suggest. I agree that 6 sqn was planned to be the first to transition to F-35 but after that it was still up in the air. Do you mean that the 5th combat sqn is in place with the inclusion F/A-18F? The fate of the SH after F-35 arrive/10 years service is still undecided right? So we conceivably have 4 F-35 combat sqns and one SH combat sqn. I understood that 2OCU would close down when the classic hornets are retired and 6 sqn would remain in the training/OCU role and therefore would not be counted as a combat sqn. This is what I was getting at.

With no dual F-35's and the rear seat of the SH configured for a WSO/ACO, pilot conversion training in the RAAF is in for a shake-up. No instructor in the back seat keeping an eye on things. I suppose there will be a greater reliance on simulators and maybe their time in the Hawk sqns. Will be interesting times anyway.

 

[the road runner]

This is my first post so go easy!
I was wondering if anyone has hear about the Finnish air force who bought f-18 air defence fighters(with no grond attack capabilities)that had titanium structural parts that gave the aircraft an extra 2000 flight hours.The titanium structures added extra weight to the f-18 but as they had no ground attack capabilities the weight was about the same as a f-18.

In hindsite would it be better for the RAAF to have bought say 36 f-18s as just air defence fighters to extend the life of the fighter ,thus not needing a bridging capability?

Then the other 39 f-18s could have been dual capable f-18s
would have this saved the RAAF from needing a bridging capibility?
Or am i far off the mark?
Thanx

 

[gf0012-aust]

I was wondering if anyone has hear about the Finnish air force who bought f-18 air defence fighters(with no grond attack capabilities)that had titanium structural parts that gave the aircraft an extra 2000 flight hours.The titanium structures added extra weight to the f-18 but as they had no ground attack capabilities the weight was about the same as a f-18.

It was the Swiss Hornets that had some titanium frames and tubs. They still required a software change though to allow activation of maximum loading to be raised from +7.5g to +9g

 

[the road runner]

Ah yes the Swiss ,sory my bad i always get them confused.
but gf do you think that if australia did get a number of titanium framed f-18s we would not have needed a bridging capability?
Thanx

 

[gf0012-aust]

but gf do you think that if australia did get a number of titanium framed f-18s we would not have needed a bridging capability?
Thanx

AGRA or Magoo (or Barra) could confirm, but I'm pretty sure that the RAAF evaluation team considered the Swiss Hornets when they did their eval tour a few years back.

I could only offer a laymans perpsective on this - which is pretty useless at a technical benefit level.

 

[the road runner]

well its more than i know gf i will waite for replies of barra,magoo and agra,thanx for your insight tho,and go the hornet!

 

[Jezza]

Hey guys,

Did anyone read Australian Aviation this month?????
Stated aus gov enquired about 2nd batch of 24 super hornets and
8 growlers.

to offset jsf delays and not to fix as many legacy hornets (centre barrels etc)

 

[AGRA]

I didn't think that these plans re numbers of sqns/aircraft were as concrete as you suggest. I agree that 6 sqn was planned to be the first to transition to F-35 but after that it was still up in the air.

Well of course now and the last few years were too early for concrete plans but the F-111/F/A-18 to F-35 conversion plan in its early stages pre Super Hornet was as I posted.

Do you mean that the 5th combat sqn is in place with the inclusion F/A-18F? The fate of the SH after F-35 arrive/10 years service is still undecided right? So we conceivably have 4 F-35 combat sqns and one SH combat sqn. I understood that 2OCU would close down when the classic hornets are retired and 6 sqn would remain in the training/OCU role and therefore would not be counted as a combat sqn. This is what I was getting at.

The OCU/training sqn naming makes for plenty of confusion. But at the moment the RAAF has four combat sqns (1, 3, 75, 77 Sqns) supported by two training units (6 Sqn, 2 OCU) that have an operational role (ie they can drop bombs on people) but would not be called upon unless as a last resort. Also the size of 6 Sqn is smaller than 2 OCU because it produces a smaller number of aircrew (2/3s of 2 OCU, including the ACOs).

Under the BACC project the RAAF’s air combat force will increase by all the personnel needed to operate the Super Hornets, up until 2020. So the current allotment of personnel provided to operate the F-111s can go about converting to the F-35. What happens after 2020 remains to be seen but it is highly unlikely that the additional personnel will be made redundant, especially as the RAAF has been making the case for expansion to match HNA/ELF.

The RAAF air combat group in 2020 could be three F-35 sqns, one F/A-18F B2 sqn (with additional OCU capability), one F/A-18A/B HUG sqn (with additional OCU capability), F-35 OCU and two Hawk LIF training sqns. 72 F-35A B3s, 24 F/A-18F B2, 24 F/A-18A/B HUGs and 32 Hawk 127s (being MLUed). At least that is what is budgeted for.

With no dual F-35's and the rear seat of the SH configured for a WSO/ACO, pilot conversion training in the RAAF is in for a shake-up. No instructor in the back seat keeping an eye on things. I suppose there will be a greater reliance on simulators and maybe their time in the Hawk sqns. Will be interesting times anyway.

The decoupled cockpits of our F/A-18F B2 Super Hornets can be converted in minutes from NFO/ACO (WSO is a USAF term!) to pilot configuration. The central joystick and left hand throttle configuration (pilot) is modular and can be changed to right and left hand controllers for the WSO.

F-35 pilot training will be very different because the aircraft is very different. Any dumb fool can fly the F-35, its designed to fly itself. Its really a UCAV with a person on board. The actual pilot will have a lot of training in emergency management and air combat but the flying side of it will not be too hard. This training will be done on simulators and solos on F-35s.

 

[the road runner]

AGRA, i was wondering if you heard about the swiss,who had titanium structures that gave their f-18s an extra structural life of about 3000 hours
in hindsite would the RAAF have been better off getting say 36 of these planes for AD,and would this action prevented the raaf from needing a bridging capability?
Thanx

 

[AGRA]

AGRA, i was wondering if you heard about the swiss,who had titanium structures that gave their f-18s an extra structural life of about 3000 hours
in hindsite would the RAAF have been better off getting say 36 of these planes for AD,and would this action prevented the raaf from needing a bridging capability?

The Swiss do things differently to everyone else, they steam clean their street lights once a week…. And they don't mind spending millions to add Ti to their aircraft to make them stronger so as to pull more Gs and fly longer. They also have a unique air operations environment with the air defence of the Alps thing. Very different to everyone else; kind of like a granite aircraft carrier mixed with the Death Star trench.

But the Hornet fatigue issue is quite overrated. The aircraft centre barrels are certified for 5,000 hours. That’s certification, not an absolute lifetime. Doesn’t mean at the end of those 5,000 hours the aircraft are going to break in half if you go flying.

In hindsight there is nothing wrong with building 5,000 hour certification Hornets. The aircraft should have been replaced from now with another anyway. >30 year lifetime (out to 2015 and onwards) is a far too ambitious ad ultimately miserly fleet management by Defence.