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

[Ozzy Blizzard]

In people’s opinion would it be more prudent in getting the F35c over the F35a.
http://www.jsf.mil/downloads/documents/AFA Conf - JSF Program Brief - 26 Sept 06.pdf
In respect to it having more internal fuel capacity and capable of carrying more ordnance,
F35a=184480lbs range 6oonm
F35c=20085lbs range 650nm
F35b=14003lbs range 500nm
With more fuel onboard we could reduce the amount tankers need for any given mission profile or go further or loiter for longer periods of time

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/jsf/index.html
In regards to more ordnance carried some site’s state that it can carry more but it appears in this site at the top of page it is the same, I am not sure which is correct

I am also looking long term planning if we ever decide to get a carrier in the future for the RAN, these aircraft are all ready carrier capable and the amount of aircraft on the carrier can fluctuate depending on tasking at the time

problem is the F-35C will be schite loads more expensive. And all you will get for your money is a better wing loading, slightly higher range and no internal gun.

As for a carrier, with the capability of F-35b and the possibility of V-22 based AEW&C platforms why would you go with CATOBAR (unless you're the US). A 25~30kt carrier (ala Canberra) can put a full squadron of F-35's in theater with comparable AEW&C cover to an E-2D, for what, half the through life price of a comparable (or bigger) CATOBAR design? The RN had a choice between CATOBAR and STOVL with the CVF, they still stuck with STOVL. Says something about the leaps this form of technology is making at the moment.

 

[AnthonyB]

What are chances of getting a sqdn of f35b's?
Would we need a 3rd Canberra class?

 

[Aussie Digger]

What are chances of getting a sqdn of f35b's?
Would we need a 3rd Canberra class?

Two fifths of ... all!

Probably, but WHY? WHEN? These things contribute to discussion, simply asking doesn't...

Please try and ADD to the discussion, rather than simply relying upon everyone else...

And naval questions should really be asked in the naval thread...

 

[AnthonyB]

I tend to think that if you don't know what your talking about try not to say to much cause you'll sound like a utter tool. I'm no expert so I don't want to make out I've got answers or know stuff I just don't. This was my first post that was just questions without dialogue attached but I've had my questions answered. I've also learnt a fair bit so I'll just melt back into the web and read up, so I won't irritate you further.

I thought it unlikely,. since we will already have two airframes now we've bought Super Hornets. However politicians don't always do sensible things or listen to sensible people.

The reasons for getting a single squandron might be... We have two ships that with a few mods could carry them. We are committed to Pacific region stablisation where STOVL may be an advantage on short island runways.

As for it being not a RAAF topic, if we did get them, why would we generate the overhead for a whole seperate fixed Naval Air wing? We only have so many pilots and resources, why run two seperate fixed wing orgs in differing parts of the defence force. I'd imagine RAAF planes, pilots and engineers and the navy acting as the freight company for the RAAF.

As you can see, I have no idea what I'm talking about, so thanks to those who took the time to answer a novices questions but I'll leave to experts .

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted

 

[Navor86]

But what what I do not get is that you would have to buy 24 other JSF+ a whole Carrier+have tof find the crew and pay them.
Wouldnt it be than more cost effective to buy some more(around 18) Tigers for the Army,3 more Tankers and 1 add JSF sqn of 18 for the Air Force+ 4th AWD

 

[AnthonyB]

Navor,

Don't want to get accussed of contiminating a RAAF thread with RAN stuff, but look up Canberra class HLD's. It is tempting to think that we have the ability to make use of them, if only on an adhoc basis.

 

[AnthonyB]

weasel1962,

My suggestions was for a Singapore to use Christmas island as a air training base. (Presumeably we would let the Malaysian come to but they have less need.) It was once Singaporean territory and the local population would presumeably be friendly to the idea. ASEAN itself couldn;t complain because an ASEAN nation would benefit.

Of course Indonesia would feel threatened, so that is why others thought the idea not particularly good.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted

 

[alexsa]

A few points.

1. Christams Island never "belonged' to Singapore. It was a british posssion adminstered as a crown colony (British) through Singapore and transfered to Australia by the British in 1957 for a payment of 2.9 million pounds to the colonial government in Singapore. This is qutie a bit different to how it was protrayed in previous post.

2.As far as being washed away in a Tsunami Chrsitmas island is quite step to0 (not low lying Cocos keeling) being over 300m above sea level in some places and ther runway is a the top of a rise and is highly unlikly to be effectd unless the was much bigger than ny in recorded history.

 

[Navor86]

Does the RAAF plans to introduce any long range air launched Antiship Missiles to be fired from P3 or later P8?Or doesnt RAAF Doctrine plan the use of Patrol Planes as ASM Bombers?

The RAAF purchased JASSM for its Hornets.Do they have an Antiship Capability?And has Australia opted for the ER version?

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Does the RAAF plans to introduce any long range air launched Antiship Missiles to be fired from P3 or later P8?Or doesnt RAAF Doctrine plan the use of Patrol Planes as ASM Bombers?

The RAAF purchased JASSM for its Hornets.Do they have an Antiship Capability?And has Australia opted for the ER version?

1. P3C & P8 (when it eventuates) are capable of firing Harpoon BII, a long range and extremely capable AShM allready in the RAAF/RAN's inventory.

2. JASSM is planned to be acquired by the RAAF and will have its latent (and extremely extensive) ship-busting capability developed thanks to $AUD investment. However considering the cost and effort it takes to integrate a new weapons system on an old platform i doubt they will make an appearance under any Orion's. P-8 may be another story though.

3. JASSM-ER is still in very very early development, remember JASSM isn't even operational yet. JASSM-ER is a long way off.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted

 

[Trackmaster]

As a by the way -- the Christmas Island used by the British for nuclear testing in the early to mid 50's was the Christmas Island in the Pacific. Now adminsitered by Kirribati.
They were the Grapple Tests. The US also tested there until 1962.

 

[thorpete1]

Britons first H-bomb was set of at Christmas Island as well as two others. The US held 15 Nuclear tests there. All were air bursts as I understand and very little irradiation of Christmas Island occurred.

The British test weapons were dropped from Valiant bombers staging off the island, so the island already has a substantial runway and facilities albeit they being dated to the early 1960's.

 

[StevoJH]

Britons first H-bomb was set of at Christmas Island as well as two others. The US held 15 Nuclear tests there. All were air bursts as I understand and very little irradiation of Christmas Island occurred.

The British test weapons were dropped from Valiant bombers staging off the island, so the island already has a substantial runway and facilities albeit they being dated to the early 1960's.

As Trackmaster Stated, the British and US Nuclear Tests took place in the pacific in what is now part of the Republic of Kirribati, not the Christmas Island in the Indian Ocean.

 

[thorpete1]

sorry my mistake. Wrong Christmas Island.

 

[alexsa]

Just a bit of history from Singapore's perspective. In 1956, Mr Lim Yew Hock took over as the second chief minister of Singapore. It was under his administration that the administration agreed to the transfer of Christmas Island to Australia for the compensation payment. The fact that the Singapore administration then was paid is already sufficient to show that there was at least a certain "ownership" although as pointed out, Singapore was technically under the colonial rule of the British.

I think there is some debate on the ability of the Singapore to be able to say no to the transfer. Still, the transfer did happen (some say that it was because it was used jointly bet UK and AUs for nuke testing between '52 to '58).

The transfer was one of the political factors that resulted in the election of the current PAP govt in Singapore in 1959 (and remains the governing party in Singapore since independence in 1965 until today).

Noted with thanks however on the elevation of the island which eliminates the potential impact of a Tsunami.

No arguement with the compensation payment but it was a British Crown possession 'administered' in Singapore, not owned by Singapore. The compensation was for the expected phosphate value that would be removed from the income steams for Singapore as a result of the fact this British possesion was being transferred.

I agree it would have been quite hard for Singapore to refuse givne the status and understand the feelings thsi would have caused.

 

[Navor86]

Sign joint marketing agreement
31.01.2007






Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace and Lockheed Martin have signed a joint marketing agreement for an aircraft-version of the new Naval Strike Missile (NSM) to be known as the Joint Strike Missile (JSM). This version of the missile will be adapted for deployment on the US Joint Strike Fighter being developed by Lockheed Martin.

Funded by Norway and Australia, a study for making adaptations to both the missile and the fighter craft is already in progress. It is expected that the adaptations will take three years to reach the technological maturity required for the missile to be an option for deployment on the JSF.

The agreement with Lockheed Martin further underscores how advanced the NSM is compared with other anti-ship missiles.

http://www.kongsberg.com/eng/kda/news/default.asp?id=33279

I know that this rather old,but I have the feeling that the RAAF seems to want a lot of Missile Systems (JSOW,JASSM-ER and now NSM)

Wouldnt this cause a logistical Nightmare?
Or is this NSM Project for RAAF already a dead fish?

 

[Aussie Digger]

http://www.kongsberg.com/eng/kda/news/default.asp?id=33279

I know that this rather old,but I have the feeling that the RAAF seems to want a lot of Missile Systems (JSOW,JASSM-ER and now NSM)

Wouldnt this cause a logistical Nightmare?
Or is this NSM Project for RAAF already a dead fish?

This is old and I haven't heard anything about it for years.

Out of interest though, RAAF will operate JASSM, JSOW and Harpoon Block II come 2010 anyway.

NSM was designed to be a replacement for RAAF's Harpoon stocks as I understand the original intent.

The reason RAAF was interested in NSM was because it was intended to be capable of being carried on the F-35's internal weapons bays, unlike Harpoon and JASSM. JSOW is intended to be carried internally on the F-35 too, but NSM being a powered missile significantly outranges the current iteration of JSOW.

Whether JSOW-ER supersedes the need for NSM remains to be seen...