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

[Mr Ignorant]

I seem to recall that in the past the Imperial Japanese Navy and the Army were bent on invading Australia. Air and Naval bases were built in Rabul, Truk and Guadalcanal. You can off course, provided you had enough time and money, visit these places now and admire the dilapidated Japanese compounds and hunks of WW2 scrap metal lying around, and I suppose a few can admire the highly spirited battles the Japanese fought against Americans and Australians in this theatre of WW2. But, it's not far fetched to suggest that the Australians need to get some serious bit of gear for their Air Force.

The F/A 18Es should help bolster the number of Hornets in service, but perhaps the JSF remains the future type for the next generation of feral air pups the Australians are now schooling.

Otherwise the Japanese idea was fairly novel. Invade and sweep all coastal Australian cities (Brisbane, Sydney, Darwin,...) and you have an Iron grip on the rest of the Australian country.

 

[irtusk]

The Airforce is not the best Asset to stop Maritime crimes, such as piracy or the sinking of a ship by opposing forces Navy. For this we have Anzacs which provide a Cover of trade routes, providing clear and visible presence in the Maritime Environment. The AWD is designed and will be in place to eliminate an air threat before it even sees its target.

how many ANZACs and AWDs will you have?

how much ocean surface do australian ships travel over?

as you can see, you quickly run into a problem

you can't possibly defend everywhere that could possibly come under attack

simple defense isn't enough, you need an offensive capability

and this goes beyond just naval situations, there are any number of ways nations can cause grief, and having a credible quick-reaction aerial threat is very valuable

I fail to see how a F117 can defend trade routes when thats why we have a Navy.

defense through intimidation my dear friend

And how does the F117 work into this? Strategic deterrence implies you have a capable strike aircraft that can match or dominate your best enemy, but a F117 would'nt dp that.

why's that?

it can penetrate defended airspace and blow up targets anywhere

once Qadaffi saw bombs drop right next to his family he got 'scared straight'

Thats what History books are for, to show that those who have tried across the globe to get at the ADF or Australia havn't been given a chance to go out swinging, they've just been taken out.

logically then you should just disband all Australian military forces, because any fool can look at the history books and see that messing with australia is pointless

somehow i don't think it works like that

history is important, but current capabilities are more important

and if countries see that they can strike with impunity, well you really don't want to go down that road

Thats what the SH is for, interim measures if someone geek stays out of it then it will remain that way.

an interim measure for what?

for supplementing the Hornets in an A2A role? yes
replacing the F-111 in a strategic deterrence role? NO

Land targets could be from strike team of SAS,3RAR to Mech infantry Division.

many such missions would be suicide missions with a low probability of success

on the other hand, the F-117 provides
1. a high probability of success
2. low cost if it fails

in most cases it is far simpler (and safer) to just drop a couple bombs on their heads

Collins,FFG,FFH, can provide a strike capability if in Range.

Collins is only fitted with torpedos and harpoons

the ground attack capability of the ANZACS consists of exactly . . . 1 5" gun

hardly fear inspiring

the Adelaide class has 1 76mm gun, even worse

For the Air, the SH is being sought to cover a "GAP" that may be provide by the withdrawl of the F111.

Q: how does the SH attack heavily defended targets?
A: it doesn't

the SH is not a valid replacement for the F-111 QED

Of course a ship becomes vulnerable when attacking a defended coastline, thats why the A Never do it alone
and B Always with a mix of capapble ships.

by 'not alone' and 'mix of capable ships' i assume you mean the USN because otherwise Australia doesn't have anything remotely close to what's required

The RAN works with USN if attacking a defended coastline

if the RAN was working with the USN, this conversation would be moot because the USAF just send some B-2s and take care of it

if your policy is to rely on the US to do your dirty work, then fine

but if you want an independent capability, well you need an independent capability

at this point without a destroyer we rely on Task Groups or coalitions

alternatively, you could get the F-117 and have instant credible deterrence

A sub provides a silent strike capability, without the same risks provided to a Aircraft.

perhaps, if you had tomahawks on your subs

which you don't

Even stealth has its flaws, with the amount of secrecy involved in the F1117 since day one its biggest advantage could have already been cracked and they USAF is happy to move it on, as already mention Kosovo kinda ruined its mystic Aurora around it.

yes stealth has its limitations

that doesn't mean it's useless and doesn't mean it's not credible

it can't be 'cracked', stealth always provides an advantage over non-stealth

all Kosovo showed was that you can't be stupid with it

that doesn't mean it isn't still respected and feared (as it should be)

 

[Mr Ignorant]

yes stealth has its limitations

that doesn't mean it's useless and doesn't mean it's not credible

it can't be 'cracked', stealth always provides an advantage over non-stealth

all Kosovo showed was that you can't be stupid with it

that doesn't mean it isn't still respected and feared (as it should be)[/QUOTE]

Interesting, the Aardvark can still excite some discussion. Well, Irtusk does have a valid point on the role of that type of bomber.

The Issue appears to be a fear of obsolete F-111s in 2015 for instance. I don't see how the F35s and FA18s could fill in this role in RAAF fleet, and maybe perhaps there is some merit in the F117, but would the Americans ever offer an export version of this sophisticated Bomber, in view of below???

An extract of what was wrote in Airforce Technology;

"The F-117A aircraft is also known as the Frisbee and the Wobblin' Goblin. The mission of the aircraft is to penetrate dense threat environments and attack high-value targets with high accuracy. Nighthawk has been in operational service in Panama, during Operation Desert Storm, in Kosovo, in Afghanistan and during Operation Iraqi Freedom.

The F-117 is being replaced in the USAF by the F-22 Raptor. The first 10 of the 55 F-117 aircraft in service were retired in December 2006. The remainder is scheduled to be retired by 2008."



So the remainder will retire this year. The USAF will in turn induct a few score more Raptors in its place.

If Bombers are the issue here, then why not just purchase B52s? The B-52H entered service in 1961 and due to extensive system and structural upgrades, its service life is expected to continue beyond the year 2030.

Or just buy AC 130 Spectres or Spookys. Won't that give the RAAF a decent force replacement instead of some fancy bit of kit like the F117??

 

[irtusk]

If Bombers are the issue here, then why not just purchase B52s? The B-52H entered service in 1961 and due to extensive system and structural upgrades, its service life is expected to continue beyond the year 2030.

Or just buy AC 130 Spectres or Spookys. Won't that give the RAAF a decent force replacement instead of some fancy bit of kit like the F117??

well as you quoted

"The F-117A aircraft is also known as the Frisbee and the Wobblin' Goblin. The mission of the aircraft is to penetrate dense threat environments and attack high-value targets with high accuracy.

the F-117 is for attacking highly-defended high-value targets

the B-52 (and Spectre) can't be used for such a role

the B-52 has the RCS (radar cross section) of a flying barn and would get shot down by any semicompetent (and even incompetent) air defense system

now they certainly have their roles (Spectre is fantastic for CAS for instance), but this isn't one of them

 

[Mr Ignorant]

the F-117 is for attacking highly-defended high-value targets

the B-52 (and Spectre) can't be used for such a role

the B-52 has the RCS (radar cross section) of a flying barn and would get shot down by any semicompetent (and even incompetent) air defense system

now they certainly have their roles (Spectre is fantastic for CAS for instance), but this isn't one of them

Well then, I guess I've hit the nail on the head. Bombers is the issue for the RAAF, and I assume high value targets, such as airbases and ground radar targets would be high on the list for the F117.

The trouble is geo politics. I don't see any nation beyond the north of Darwin possessing any quality in materiel that would trouble Australia. But on the other hand, purchasing a few F117s would be a cultural signifier in terms of deterrence. Bombers do certainly have their roles in air strategy, but fighter sweeps would probably provide the necessary protection - although the only time I can think that a flight of B52s ever needed that much protection was over the flight route to Hanoi. Then the Americans used Phantoms for escorts, but this was offset by excellent Russian surface to air missiles.

Ideally the F-117 will probably be symbolic rather than practical; But the Americans are now mothballing these with the aim of leaving them in storage, which I suspect is a 'just in case' approach. How useful would this be for Australia?

A well thought out suggestion Irtusk, but and there's so many buts - For now, a doubting thomas like me can't imagine anything beyond the need to replace the Aardvark.

But maybe the F-117 is the one to purchase.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

What a painfully stupid conversation.

F117 for the RAAF? That makes heaps of sence!


@magoo's MoD review question.....

I would dump sea sprites right now. The cost/benifit just doesnt make sence. NH90's instead for the fleet, off the shelf so low risk and commonality with MHR 90. We will just have to live with the sunk cost. Wedgetail and tankers stay (there has to be some room for delays in a new technology and given the capability provided what we've seen is not that bad), tankers especially since we've stared retireing legacy platforms without replacement. Agree with FFG up, we have no option but to go ahead with the programme in some way, but someone in the private sector should get an allmighty spanking for the way it has been conducted.


Hold off on ditching CBR's, if we ditch the programme we effectively corrupt the 100 F35 plan and lock ourelves into bugs for 20+ years, when we would could be facing a serious capability gap. AD i disagree with you on that one, more SH's mean LESS capability (because of the opportunity cost of loosing 2 squadrons of F35A's). VLO will bring a incredibly valuable capability to the RAAF's air combat system, and even with comperable avionics packages rhino B2/3 wont be anyware near as lethal or survivable. F35A was chosen as the RAAf's future platform for a reason, it suits our needs far better than F/A18F does. So from a cost to benifit/detrement anaysis standpoint, does the advantages of lower risk and cost from ditching CBR and buying Rhino B2's of the shelf offset the loss of capability and comonality with loosing the 2 squadrons of F35A's? Well IMO at least, as it stands now no. For such a real and significant loss of capability an equally drastic problem must arise with CBR and i think its too early to make that desision.

@F117......

Cost to benifit people.

problems.....

ORPHAN PLATOFRM (no one else on the plannet will use such a system).

Extreemely restricted payload, 2x 2000lb PGMs which means 2 targets hit.

Old airframes with no international logistical structure in place = maintinance nightmare (like F111 with cancer!)

High maintinance requirements for 1st gen stealth. I know this has been rebutted with the "proove it" line but its pretty much common knowlage that the F117's LO ismuch more maintinance intenceive than current gen platforms. IIRC it was one of the design goals for the F35 programme that the achieve better LO maintinance manhours per flight hour than the nighthawk to the tune of an ORDER OF MAGNITUDE.... Which they have reportedly achieved.

So what do we get for this expencive, orphan, maininance intencive and old platform? (benifits)......

The ability to hit 2 targets with PGM's at 400odd NM's at night.

THATS IT......... No marritime strike (which is sooooooo vital for the RAAF), no air defence capability, no interception capability, no CAS capability, very little ISR capability, hell even daytime strike. SH B2 can do all of those things better than a nighthawk can and i would argue it is amore capable night striker (more weapons on target, better ISR thanks to the APG 79 for battle damage assesments, and comperable or superior survivability considering its EWSP suite and stand off capability).....


Considering the mediocre (at best) capability you get for all the risk & cost, why oh why would we ever buy F117?????????

As for the F117 providing "strategic deturrence" were SH would not. well deturrence is provided by capability people not platforms, and we get MORE capability with SH and its weapons fit and EW suite.

 

[irtusk]

Considering the mediocre (at best) capability you get for all the risk & cost, why oh why would we ever buy F117?????????

becaues the F-117 can strike fear where the SH strikes out

As for the F117 providing "strategic deturrence" were SH would not. well deturrence is provided by capability people not platforms, and we get MORE capability with SH and its weapons fit and EW suite.

the SH is more capable in all the 'housekeeping' roles (CAS, maritime, blah blah blah)

but housekeeping roles don't strike fear

the ability to strike at any target any where even when it is heavily defended creates fear

the F-117 gives you that, the SH does not

 

[Aussie Digger]

how many ANZACs and AWDs will you have?

how much ocean surface do australian ships travel over?

as you can see, you quickly run into a problem

you can't possibly defend everywhere that could possibly come under attack

simple defense isn't enough, you need an offensive capability

We don't need to try and defend "everywhere" because no-one has the capability to attack us "everywhere". Except our good friend the USA of course...

and this goes beyond just naval situations, there are any number of ways nations can cause grief, and having a credible quick-reaction aerial threat is very valuable

We have this. You are not scoring many points here...

defense through intimidation my dear friend

What a fantastic foreign policy..

why's that?

it can penetrate defended airspace and blow up targets anywhere

once Qadaffi saw bombs drop right next to his family he got 'scared straight'

I'm pretty sure it was conventional NON LO aircraft that dropped those bombs wasn't it?

logically then you should just disband all Australian military forces, because any fool can look at the history books and see that messing with australia is pointless

somehow i don't think it works like that

history is important, but current capabilities are more important

and if countries see that they can strike with impunity, well you really don't want to go down that road

NAME a Country within strike range of Australia with a capability to strike with impugnity?

You can't because our capabilities are closely matched against those of our neighbours as we are too far from any MAJOR power to fear attack from them. (Beyond Intercontinental missile means obviously and our friends wouldn't tolerate that).

Collins is only fitted with torpedos and harpoons

the ground attack capability of the ANZACS consists of exactly . . . 1 5" gun

And Block II Harpoons. The ones with a 220k range and the same ground attack capability as a JDAM...

hardly fear inspiring

the Adelaide class has 1 76mm gun, even worse

And 220k ranged Harpoon Block II missiles...

Q: how does the SH attack heavily defended targets?
A: it doesn't

the SH is not a valid replacement for the F-111 QED

There are weapons known as SLAM-ER, JSOW, Harpoon and HARM variants, which allow an aircraft to attack a target beyond the range of ground based interceptors...

RAAF will operate JSOW and Harpoon from it's variants at it's in-service date and likely JASSM down the track...

It is a very valid replacement for the F-111.

alternatively, you could get the F-117 and have instant credible deterrence

We have a credible deterrence now, based on the huge number of attacks we have endured...

perhaps, if you had tomahawks on your subs

which you don't

Perhaps these enemies of ours would acquire long ranged weapons too. Then our problems would be magnified...

If they do anyway, then I suspect our acquisitions will be adjusted to match. Our Defence leadership do actually keep an eye on what's happening in our region...

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

becaues the F-117 can strike fear where the SH strikes out

What a logical, ballanced argument! nfloorl:

It strikes fear does it? Mate your a laugh a minet. How exactly does the F117 induce 'fear' in our enemies? Becasue its painted black? Sh can hit more targets, more effectively, even in the daytime. THAT is going to introduce more fear than a paint job. . Anyway who the hell builds military capability on psycology, if thats the primary function we can equip SOCOMD with 'scream' masks, that would induce fear!?! You build your military around capability (becasue when you end up in a real shooting war overall capability is the only thing that matters), and when you have superior capability psycology takes care of it self.

the SH is more capable in all the 'housekeeping' roles (CAS, maritime, blah blah blah)

but housekeeping roles don't strike fear

the ability to strike at any target any where even when it is heavily defended creates fear

the F-117 gives you that, the SH does not

Maritime strike a 'house keeping' role?

With its EW suite and weapons load SH can hit the same heavilly defeded targets at better stand-off ranges, with arguably better survivability, better flexability and asses the damage at the smae stand off range, and it can even do it in the daylight. By your definintion then the F/A-18F B2 should induce more fear than the Nighthawk.

Achievable, maintainable capability mate, THAT is the point, not the mystique of some old platform.

THANK GOD your not in charge of military procurement bud, if so i'd be emigrateing....

 

[gf0012-aust]

But maybe the F-117 is the one to purchase.

Planes need to be assessed against a threat requirement and their contribution to achieving that threat reduction.

The F117's were designed for precision strike in a complex battlespace. What is being ignored is that there is no point in identifying individual platforms when they participate as a package. You have to look at package issues.

Irrespective of the calibre of their signature management - F117's were part of a significant package to assist their entry into that battlespace. A typical package included USN Prowlers, pre strike missions in the corridor, routing around SAM installations and known radar sites (as you still plan around a threat and don't move into the threat area until the last moment). The cost of these support packages (Prowlers, Ravens, Compass, Rivet, tanking, recovery and snatch alerts, F-15nn and Hornet/Shornets along the corridors at various points meant that they were only used for HV threats.

In an australian context, where in the region, where in our threat matrix is there any notional enemy capability that requires precision strike and a level of package support that would require a 1/3rd of australian fixed wing combat assets and levels of support that we just don't have ?? (Rivet, Compass, Prowler/Raven, snatch teams already in contact area etc...)

Now if the threat is not specialised, then achievement of neutralising the threat can be done with existing platforms with long range or "hallmark" weapons packages. (Hallmark = "reach out and touch someone")

For an example of how complex the support packages were for a typical F-117 strike mission refer to "Bandits over Bagdhad". A history of the F-117 written by its designers, pilots and support crew.

Quite frankly its an overpriced piece of kit for a country like australia where I personally cannot identify any single notional enemy complex or facility that couldn't be degraded or destroyed with our existing capability - far more efficiently, and far more cost effectively.

 

[irtusk]

We don't need to try and defend "everywhere" because no-one has the capability to attack us "everywhere".

common fallacy

they don't have to attack everywhere

only where you're not

there are any number of ways nations can cause grief, and having a credible quick-reaction aerial threat is very valuable

We have this.

not really (as will be demonstrated later)

NAME a Country within strike range of Australia with a capability to strike with impugnity?

as i've mentioned ad nauseum but apparently not enough, you don't have to physically strike the continent of australia to strike at australia

What a fantastic foreign policy..

obviously that is not the sum total of your foreign policy

but it's a helpful club to keep in you back pocket if the need arises

I'm pretty sure it was conventional NON LO aircraft that dropped those bombs wasn't it?

ah yes, back in the good old days before integrated air defenses were de rigeur for every tin pot dictator

And Block II Harpoons. The ones with a 220k range and the same ground attack capability as a JDAM...

THAT is finally a good point

i had not realized they had added ground attack capabilities to the harpoon

it does add a ton more capability/threat to your fleet

BUT there are still a few problems

1. it still takes time for a ship to move into position, definitely not quick reaction

2. depending on how far inland it needs to strike, it might have to make itself very vulnerable to attack (subs might be less vulnerable but they're even slower)

3. the BII Harpoon isn't stealth. Yes it's harder to shootdown than a regular plane and yes it has countermeasures, but i wouldn't have confidence that it could defeat, say, a modern S-300

BII Harpoons definitely help, but i would still say the flexibility and smaller RCS of the F-117 would provide a valuable addition

There are weapons known as SLAM-ER, JSOW, Harpoon and HARM variants, which allow an aircraft to attack a target beyond the range of ground based interceptors...

let's talk a hypothetical situation where you have to cross a coastal defense line before you can even reach the target that is further inland

if they have S-300s sitting on the coast i really, really wouldn't want to get closer than 50 miles in a SH before launching

thus you use up a good chunk of your range before you even cross the coast

and then the S-300s shoot down your Harpoons anyways!

oops, how embarrassing

We have a credible deterrence now, based on the huge number of attacks we have endured...

or maybe your foreign policy has been successful to this point and no country has felt a need to attack

may it continue to be successful in the future, but situations can change in the blink of an eye

you hope for the best, but you prepare for the worst

the F-117 is very valuable and cheap 'worst-case-scenario' insurance

 

[irtusk]

It strikes fear does it? Mate your a laugh a minet. How exactly does the F117 induce 'fear' in our enemies? Becasue its painted black? Sh can hit more targets, more effectively, even in the daytime.

only if they aren't defended

if they are well defended, it can't touch them

Anyway who the hell builds military capability on psycology,

everyone

if you don't understand that, i'm sorry, i can't help you

With its EW suite and weapons load SH can hit the same heavilly defeded targets at better stand-off ranges, with arguably better survivability, better flexability and asses the damage at the smae stand off range, and it can even do it in the daylight.

you're so wrong i don't even know here to begin

but i'll start with this: air defenses can start BEFORE the target, well before even

a SH can be in range of air defenses so far before it's desired target is reached that no standoff weapon is going to have sufficient range

 

[irtusk]

Irrespective of the calibre of their signature management - F117's were part of a significant package to assist their entry into that battlespace.

the US does like overkill doesn't it

In an australian context, where in the region, where in our threat matrix is there any notional enemy capability that requires precision strike

you assume Australia won't have to strike a high-value target in the next 10 years?

you may be right, you might even probably be right

but if you do have to, you're going to wish for the best capability you can get

and right now the best capability you can get is the F-117

better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it

as far as complex air defenses that would require stealth to defeat, well it wouldn't take long for anyone to setup an S-300 network

you might not have the support package the US can put together, but even a 'naked' F-117 gives you a far greater chance of success than a SH (which gives you 0%)

Quite frankly its an overpriced piece of kit for a country like australia

i'm sure uncle sam will give you quite the discount

in fact i believe if you got it and retired the F-111 you would end up saving money over the next 10-15 years

where I personally cannot identify any single notional enemy complex or facility that couldn't be degraded or destroyed with our existing capability

this is what i like to call the 'hope' defense policy

just hope that no one erects a credible air defense system until the F-35 arrives

 

[Aussie Digger]

common fallacy

they don't have to attack everywhere

only where you're not

Who, what, where, how, why?

Address these points and we can actually have a discussion on these points.

Then add how exactly a foreign state is going to benefit, why this couldn't be achieved diplomatically and exactly what threat exists that would require an LO aircraft before we are due to get F-35 anyway.

You've mentioned S-300. Who has it exactly that might want to attack us?

If my memory serves me, Syria has it, yet Israel just bombed them with F-15's and F-16's quite successfully. At the very least Syria has a strong IADS system than any in our region, yet Israel demonstrated yet again that non-LO aircraft are more than survivable in the face of such systems.

as i've mentioned ad nauseum but apparently not enough, you don't have to physically strike the continent of australia to strike at australia.

You haven't demonstrated a thing, other than repetitively stating an unsupported idea of why you think a specific platform should be acquired for Australia.

obviously that is not the sum total of your foreign policy

but it's a helpful club to keep in you back pocket if the need arises

I suggest you read the 2000 White Paper, Australia's current strategic guidance. We seek only a limited ability to strike back at a potential enemy, enough to make it worth the enemy's while to evaluate the cost of striking at Australia.

We don't seek a war-winning strategic strike capability...

ah yes, back in the good old days before integrated air defenses were de rigeur for every tin pot dictator

Actually I think you'd find that Libya had quite strong IADS system, for it's time.

THAT is finally a good point

i had not realized they had added ground attack capabilities to the harpoon

it does add a ton more capability/threat to your fleet

BUT there are still a few problems

1. it still takes time for a ship to move into position, definitely not quick reaction

2. depending on how far inland it needs to strike, it might have to make itself very vulnerable to attack (subs might be less vulnerable but they're even slower)

3. the BII Harpoon isn't stealth. Yes it's harder to shootdown than a regular plane and yes it has countermeasures, but i wouldn't have confidence that it could defeat, say, a modern S-300

BII Harpoons definitely help, but i would still say the flexibility and smaller RCS of the F-117 would provide a valuable addition

Obviously a naval force is not going to be able to react to an immediate threat as quickly as an aircraft, however naval forces possess persistence which no aircraft can match.

Balanced capabilities are what we need, not over-investment in our favoured platforms of choice.

let's talk a hypothetical situation where you have to cross a coastal defense line before you can even reach the target that is further inland

if they have S-300s sitting on the coast i really, really wouldn't want to get closer than 50 miles in a SH before launching

thus you use up a good chunk of your range before you even cross the coast

and then the S-300s shoot down your Harpoons anyways!

oops, how embarrassing

Why talk hypotheticals? Why not talk reality. Indonesia doesn't have the S-300 and neither does PNG, Malaysia or Singapore.

Why consider threat systems that don't exist and I have not seen any plans to make them so.

Why not add TacTom and B-2 bombers in ADF service to this scenario if we're going to play make believe?

or maybe your foreign policy has been successful to this point and no country has felt a need to attack

Or maybe we can consider the reality that these so-called threat countries are actually our ALLIES and have no desire, let alone NEED to try and attack us?

you hope for the best, but you prepare for the worst

the F-117 is very valuable and cheap 'worst-case-scenario' insurance

Hardly. If Australia were to prepare for the worst, than I would suggest very great efforts to acquire F-22 would be made and it would probably be released if Australia were in parlous danger of a serious "State on State" war.

But of course, then the USA and others would assist us anyway...

What we should continue to do is maintain credible capabilities for the defence of Australia that provide an "over-match" of a possible enemies capabilities within our region. We do not need to vastly over-match them, just credibly so and our current plans will do this.

We should maintain capabilities capable of participating in international coalitions at ANY level of warfare in order to be a "good" International citizen and maintain good land based capabilities to undertake peace enforcement/keeping operations within our own region. Our current plans do this.

Anything more would be wasteful and probably counter-productive.

 

[Aussie Digger]

you assume Australia won't have to strike a high-value target in the next 10 years?

you may be right, you might even probably be right

but if you do have to, you're going to wish for the best capability you can get

and right now the best capability you can get is the F-117

better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it

as far as complex air defenses that would require stealth to defeat, well it wouldn't take long for anyone to setup an S-300 network

you might not have the support package the US can put together, but even a 'naked' F-117 gives you a far greater chance of success than a SH (which gives you 0%)

Rubbish. Israel demonstrated that NON LO aircraft can do this only a matter of months ago as I've already discussed.

Plus JASSM will give us an LO cruise missile with a 400k range. I'd take a Block II SH firing JASSM over F-117 firing LGB's and JDAM's ANY DAY to attack a high value target.

i'm sure uncle sam will give you quite the discount

in fact i believe if you got it and retired the F-111 you would end up saving money over the next 10-15 years

Unlikely, but what would the point of maintaining the F-117 be, once we have the F-35, when even L-M has stated publicly that the F-35 will feature "greater" stealth than the F-117?

this is what i like to call the 'hope' defense policy

just hope that no one erects a credible air defense system until the F-35 arrives

So you admit no-one has one. Why did you even raise this idea to begin with then?

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

only if they aren't defended

if they are well defended, it can't touch them

bullsh*t....

The EW capabilities of the APG 79 alone will allow a single F/A-18F b2 to penitrate any IADS in the region at high altitude, and if JASSM is procured and intergrated, it only has to get to within 350km+ of the target, JASSM does the rest. JSOW C can do the same thing from 120km+. So name a single IADS in the region with multiple layered surface threats with 350km range, which would not be severely disrupted by the Rhino's EW capability????? Maybe Moscow in '89 (except for the ECCM capability)???

everyone

if you don't understand that, i'm sorry, i can't help you

nice reply...

Go read some more tom clancy or something.

you're so wrong i don't even know here to begin

but i'll start with this: air defenses can start BEFORE the target, well before even

a SH can be in range of air defenses so far before it's desired target is reached that no standoff weapon is going to have sufficient range

No standoff weapon is going to have sufficient range? Against what? Your starting to sound desperate and just silly! SH can use a number of tools to penitrate the enemy IADS, including its formidable EW (electronic warfare) capability and stand off weapons, this also excludes any other SEAD/DEAD capability the RAAF would employ. A rhino pilot can use these tools in several ways to hit the target, and his chanes would be good against any IADS in the world considering whats in the tool belt, and excellent considering th state of regional IADS. You seem to think that just because a defence system is in place then poor superhornet is powerless, which is just crap.

 

[irtusk]

Rubbish. Israel demonstrated that NON LO aircraft can do this only a matter of months ago as I've already discussed.

Israel exploited a specific vulnerability that is likely already fixed and will not exist in the future

it was a one-off deal

Plus JASSM will give us an LO cruise missile with a 400k range.

JASSM might still get canceled and even if it does go into production, probably won't arrive in Australia within the next 10 years

It's also become evident that the baseline JASSM missile's 250-mile-or-so range means that the launching aircraft must come within the engagement zone of the S400 surface-to-air missile system, meaning that the act of launching the missile may become something of a suicide mission for the lucky pilot.

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003492.html

now granted S400s in your neck of the woods aren't particularly likely, but you never can tell

Unlikely, but what would the point of maintaining the F-117 be, once we have the F-35, when even L-M has stated publicly that the F-35 will feature "greater" stealth than the F-117?

none, it is intended soley as an interim measure until the F-35 arrives (10-15 years as mentioned)

So you admit no-one has one. Why did you even raise this idea to begin with then?

nope, i admit no such thing because i have no idea what people down there have

but i do know this: that even if they don't have one NOW, they could get it SOON

the time from when the S-300s roll off the ship till they're all setup could easily be less than a week

and you can't assume that you'll know that they're coming until they show up one day

and then it will be too late and you'll wish you had the F-117

 

[irtusk]

The EW capabilities of the APG 79 alone will allow a single F/A-18F b2 to penitrate any IADS in the region at high altitude

you're starting to sound like those russian crazies that attribute practically magical powers to the latest Su-3x models

let me get this straight: the SH is invulnerable to any SAM system on the planet

nfloorl:

i don't think you're going to find any support for such an assertion here, even among those who disagree with the rest of my comments

 

[Aussie Digger]

Israel exploited a specific vulnerability that is likely already fixed and will not exist in the future

it was a one-off deal

Really, what was that vulnerability and why couldn't it be exploited again?

JASSM might still get canceled and even if it does go into production, probably won't arrive in Australia within the next 10 years



http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003492.html

now granted S400s in your neck of the woods aren't particularly likely, but you never can tell

Unlikely as USAF has bought and already received 600+ missiles, Australia has ordered 250, other Countries are interested in it and it's reliability has improved since upgrades have been performed to the weapon.

Your article supporting your argument is old news.

Try reading the latest edition of Australian Aviation magazine, where a good article supported by photos at ARDU have shown the weapon "fighting back"...

Or more easily read this article from Defence Daily on 21 December:

Successful Test for JASSM Cruise Missile

Defense Daily | December 21, 2007

Lockheed Martin [LMT] says its JASSM stealthy cruise missile flew successfully in a flight test yesterday, according to a company spokeswoman.

"After nine consecutive successful ground tests, today's successful flight test demonstrates our commitment to providing the Air Force with the highest quality product," the Lockheed Martin spokeswoman told Defense Daily Dec. 20.

The Air Force did not have comment before Defense Daily went to press yesterday.

The Dec. 20 flight was the second product upgrade verification (PUV) flight test of the JASSM missile since a spate of anomalies occurred in flight tests in April that set the program's progress back. During the previous PUV mission on Oct. 31, the Air Force said the JASSM flew successfully and detonated at the target (Defense Daily, Nov. 5).

The PUV flights are meant to validate improvements and planned upgrades to future lots of the JASSM.

Earlier this year, because of lingering reliability issues with the missile, the Office of the Secretary of Defense and Air Force instituted a reliability characterization program to overcome the performance issues.

The Air Force plans one additional PUV flight before embarking on a series of 16 flight tests starting in mid February 2008 to characterize the missile for reliability, Maj. Gen. Mark Shackelford, director of Global Power Programs in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition, told reporters yesterday during a briefing in the Pentagon. These tests are anticipated to conclude around the end of March 2008, he said.

After that, the JASSM program is set for review by John Young, the Pentagon's acquisition czar, to decide on its future.

"We are very pleased with the success and progression of the JASSM reliability enhancement program," the Lockheed Martin spokeswoman said. "The program is working hard with our suppliers and customers to enhance our reliability and improve our capabilities, while delivering an affordable weapon to our warfighters."

As to it's delivery, 10 years is rubbish too. ARDU are already flight testing the weapon on RAAF legacy Bugs...

nope, i admit no such thing because i have no idea what people down there have

They don't have S-300...

but i do know this: that even if they don't have one NOW, they could get it SOON

the time from when the S-300s roll off the ship till they're all setup could easily be less than a week

and you can't assume that you'll know that they're coming until they show up one day

and then it will be too late and you'll wish you had the F-117

Capability development does NOT work like that. Crew's need to be provided individual training on ANY platform, platforms need to be integrated into your existed order of battle and systems need to be tested in exercises to provide what is known as "collective training".

A modern SAM system capability is not going to be developed in a week and stating such, shows you have no clue about ACTUAL military capability and what it takes to develop it.

 

[gf0012-aust]

the US does like overkill doesn't it

It does because its a risk mitigation and management issue. If everyone else could afford it, they would also apply the same level of package support to mitigate risk and ensure mission success.

you assume Australia won't have to strike a high-value target in the next 10 years?

Thats not what I said, I said that force is measured against the threat requirement. We already have high value threats that would require a layer of response packages. The use of a LO aircraft with 2 hardpoints, that can only fly at night to maximise its effectiveness and that requires extensive support to maximise its chances of success does not add up IMV to an effective solution against a specified threat requirement. What is the threat? Where, Who, how, when ???

you may be right, you might even probably be right
but if you do have to, you're going to wish for the best capability you can get and right now the best capability you can get is the F-117
better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it

A Shornet can carry twice as much strike ord as an F-117 as well as have the capacity to attack other targets and defend itself both inbound and outbound. It can carry ewarfare pods as well as targetting pods for other aircraft and assets. The F-117 enters the strike phase emission silent to facilitate strike - so it cannot communicate with any other asset for fear of transmitting its position. As the americans found out in Serbia, once the otherside demonstrate decent tactical planning and intel, then they compromise the platform. F-117 generation Stealth has niche but high risk value vulnerability.

as far as complex air defenses that would require stealth to defeat, well it wouldn't take long for anyone to setup an S-300 network

decapitation and degradation of the SAM matrix occurs as part of the planning stage. F117 missions were designed around the fact that the support package either engaged in DEAD or the F-117's skirted the air defences - and that means preplanning of tanker support at given corridors at given altitudes at given times. If you have not dominated the air battlespace and communications battlespace, then the F-117 could not enter the game - period. Unless it was in completely benign battlespace like Panama) It is an aircraft that due to its design limitations was highly and singularly more reliant on package support than any other aircraft in the US strike inventory.

you might not have the support package the US can put together, but even a 'naked' F-117 gives you a far greater chance of success than a SH (which gives you 0%)

No, it doesn't. In contested space its actually dependant on the assisting package to clear the corridor before it enters its own mission stage. OTOH, Shornets (eg) can and will enter complex battlespace as their job is to be primary.

The israelis have demonstrated how effective coherent packages are against complex defenders at a transnational level. Nobody in this region has the same degree of air defence capability as the Syrians - so in contemp levels of assessment - where, who, what, when? how? are we operating against.

i'm sure uncle sam will give you quite the discount

in fact i believe if you got it and retired the F-111 you would end up saving money over the next 10-15 years

this is what i like to call the 'hope' defense policy

just hope that no one erects a credible air defense system until the F-35 arrives

We will actually have a more sophisticated platform in place within 7 years.

but, lets assume that the Indons are a notional threat (and they are not, but they are the largest nation we have entered into conflict with recently)

They only have 4 x 4th generation aircraft. they have only just received a weapons fit (after 4 years) - and they have a second tier combat element that is regarded as combat ineffective. They do not get the training hours, they do not have weapons fit, they do not have any DACT experience. Their logistics stream is vulnerable.

They have only just acquired a land based long range radar system which has the same range as the RAAF Wedgetail.

Their navy is regarded by the Singaporeans (following Intel assessment is by Major Victor Huang, Republic of Singapore Navy) as:

In addition, Indonesia’s enforcement capacity is stretched by lack of funding and poor maintenance of its ships. According to the Indonesian defense minister, Juwono Sudarsono, only 60 percent of Indonesia’s fleet of 124 ships is operational; in contrast, the chief of staff of the Indonesian navy, Admiral Slamet Soebijanto, estimates that at least 302 ships and 170 aircraft are required to protect the nation’s archipelago of seventeen thousand islands.

Although Indonesia is acquiring new patrol boats, it has asked the United States for military assistance in the form of training and support in order to build its enforcement capacity.

* note. Indonesia is also requesting Australian assistance in the development of a greenwater navy and security management. An exchange program exists between senior officers.

11 years ago we ran a theoretical assessment on a worst case scenario where Indonesia, Malaysia and The Philipines were seized by fundamentalist extremists - our capacity to respond and deter was based on dealing with 3 active aggressors concurrently. So we do take a long view and don't base it on ideal situations. The fact that we have support agreements with all 3 countries shows that we will conduct scenarios "in extremis" - no matter how illogical or bizaare they may seem in the construct of a contemporary reality.