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

[Marc 1]

while i agree with most of your points, not sure about this

in the end, it's the value of the target you're protecting, not the cost of the munition that matters

if it's a target that must be protected, does it matter if the attack comes from a $5 munition or a $5 million dollar munition? it still has to be stopped

one example on a smaller scale: land-based phalanx systems near bases shooting hundreds of rounds to hit one very cheap mortar round

do the troops at the base care that the mortar round was cheap and go "well, it is only a cheap mortar, not worth wasting all those phalanx rounds on it"?

hardly!

I am so glad that I wasn't theo only one who had picked this up. I couldn't care what the cost of the damned bomb or projectile that has been lobbed at me - I just want it stopped! Even if you take people out of the equation the earlier arguments didn't make sense. If I had say a $50M desal plant and the enemy lobbed a $300 dumb bomb at it, I would think that a $49M defense missile would be good value. Or, what if that plant were supplying your troops with water, it wouldn't matter that it only cost $1000, if it affected your ability to conduct operations its true value is far more.

Bomb cost vs countermeasure costs = moot point.

 

[Todjaeger]

I am so glad that I wasn't theo only one who had picked this up. I couldn't care what the cost of the damned bomb or projectile that has been lobbed at me - I just want it stopped! Even if you take people out of the equation the earlier arguments didn't make sense. If I had say a $50M desal plant and the enemy lobbed a $300 dumb bomb at it, I would think that a $49M defense missile would be good value. Or, what if that plant were supplying your troops with water, it wouldn't matter that it only cost $1000, if it affected your ability to conduct operations its true value is far more.

Bomb cost vs countermeasure costs = moot point.

It is not quite a moot point... Where the costs come into play has more to due with the availability of weapons vs. countermeasures.

If an attacker is able to continually lob $300 bombs and the defender is able to continually intercept them with $100,000 missiles if everything else is equal (like defence budgets) then eventually a bomb will get through because the defender will have run out of missiles.

The other area where "cost" becomes an issue has more to do with overall mission importance. Excepting for a critical bridgehead, a defender would not likely concentrate the same level of GBAD around a bridge as they would around a national or theatre-level HQ.

As for the whole issue of if/when ordnance will be targeted and intercepted, one should perhaps look at the doctrine used by past and potential future targets of such weaponry. Another area to consider is the doctrine used by those employing the JDAM, JSOW and in the future, JAASM. One of the initial targets in an air campaign would be the GBAD, and if an initial strike did not destroy or neutralize a GBAD system, there would be followup strikes until either the attacker was no longer capable of doing so, or the target (the AA or SAM system) was no longer a threat.

-Cheers

 

[Surfinbird]

As for the whole issue of if/when ordnance will be targeted and intercepted, one should perhaps look at the doctrine used by past and potential future targets of such weaponry. Another area to consider is the doctrine used by those employing the JDAM, JSOW and in the future, JAASM. One of the initial targets in an air campaign would be the GBAD, and if an initial strike did not destroy or neutralize a GBAD system, there would be followup strikes until either the attacker was no longer capable of doing so, or the target (the AA or SAM system) was no longer a threat.

Yeaaaaahhhhhh..... That's been the whole point! SEAD/DEAD missions are flown achieving air dominance and then you can start lobbing JDAM-ERs at all and sundry as if you were over Afghanistan today. But JDAM-ER is not a DEAD system because full-spectrum GBAD can defeat it thanks to its flight profile.

As to cost well its hard to maintain an accurate accounting in the middle of the battlespace. The Admino doesn't call up the GBAD battery commander and order him to stop shooting missiles because the cost-benefit analysis isn't right!

 

[Todjaeger]

Yeaaaaahhhhhh..... That's been the whole point! SEAD/DEAD missions are flown achieving air dominance and then you can start lobbing JDAM-ERs at all and sundry as if you were over Afghanistan today. But JDAM-ER is not a DEAD system because full-spectrum GBAD can defeat it thanks to its flight profile.

As to cost well its hard to maintain an accurate accounting in the middle of the battlespace. The Admino doesn't call up the GBAD battery commander and order him to stop shooting missiles because the cost-benefit analysis isn't right!

Depending on what the target is, it can be used as part of a SEAD/DEAD mission package. By themselves, JSOW and JASSM are not SEAD/DEAD systems either. The reason why there are three different Joint weapon systems is that there are different profiles which the weapons are most appropriate for.

As for maintaining "cost" in a battlespace. You are missing the impact of cost on the battlespace. Cost plays a part in determining what is available in a given battlespace and cost is not something measured solely by $, mission value also plays a part.

As others have commented, both earlier in this thread as well as other threads, comparisons need to be made on a system vs. system, not platform vs. platform basis. To maintain that a GBAD system can and would engage incoming J-series weapons, be they JDAM, JSOW or JAASM, is ignoring and dismissing the "big picture". Namely, what else is occuring in the background, as using weapons upon another nation is not something that just randomly happen.

If one chooses to argue that Bridge X located in Country Y can be defended vs. a JDAM etc. al. fine, whatever. That completely ignores whether or not Bridge X would realistically be defended if the situation was such that it would be subject to attack, never mind any countermeasures the attacker could bring to bear to hamper the defender.

-Cheers

 

[Surfinbird]

Depending on what the target is, it can be used as part of a SEAD/DEAD mission package. By themselves, JSOW and JASSM are not SEAD/DEAD systems either. The reason why there are three different Joint weapon systems is that there are different profiles which the weapons are most appropriate for.

As for maintaining "cost" in a battlespace. You are missing the impact of cost on the battlespace. Cost plays a part in determining what is available in a given battlespace and cost is not something measured solely by $, mission value also plays a part.

As others have commented, both earlier in this thread as well as other threads, comparisons need to be made on a system vs. system, not platform vs. platform basis. To maintain that a GBAD system can and would engage incoming J-series weapons, be they JDAM, JSOW or JAASM, is ignoring and dismissing the "big picture". Namely, what else is occuring in the background, as using weapons upon another nation is not something that just randomly happen.

If you just breezed through reading that post you could be excused for thinking, yeah this dude knows what he is talking about. Because it looks the part.

But the actual ideas within it are way off the mark.

SEAD/DEAD is not just about mission packages with contemporary aircraft. The Block II Super Hornet and the F-35 can fly a SEAD/DEAD mission without a range of support. So too can a F-16CJ. Some SEAD/DEAD missions may need a tactical jamming system or decoys depending on the level of the threat.

JSOW isn't a SEAD weapon but it is a DEAD weapon (JASSM is really neither) - the D stands for destruction - and without a big kinetic bang of all those bomblets it dispenses over the SA-6 battery or whatever they will live to fight another day.

There is no J series of weapons. JSOW and JASSM were designed to share a range of features for weapons integration but that's it. The J is ever present because multiple US services planned to at one stage or do use these weapons.

You bring in the big picture? Dude a post modern theory professor would be proud of you We are talking about air to ground warfare and in particular fighting against full spectrum GBAD threats as generated by the silly comment much earlier on that the JDAM-ER provides the same kind of capability as JSOW and JASSM but at a fraction of the cost.

If one chooses to argue that Bridge X located in Country Y can be defended vs. a JDAM etc. al. fine, whatever. That completely ignores whether or not Bridge X would realistically be defended if the situation was such that it would be subject to attack, never mind any countermeasures the attacker could bring to bear to hamper the defender.

I thought this paragraph needed special attention. Are you now requesting that any discussion on this thread and others that compares weapons technology begin with an explanatory memo pointing out the reasons why the engagement is taking place? For example - why is the Su-30 in a dogfight with a F-22 and how come the 12.7mm sniper rifle is shooting against a light tank?

In one fell swoop of gobbledygook you have completely destroyed all comparative practice. Dude, I'm impressed!

Admin: Edit. You need to modify your tone and demonstrate some respect to posters who you do not know but in actual fact are in a position to pass comment. Because you don't know an individuals background you could be excused - however the lesson is that the tone and quality of detail in a response should trigger an alert that they might actually have a background to be cautious of... The tone, content and delivery of a response should always trigger caution about what the other person might actually know.

 

[Aussie Digger]

There is no J series of weapons. JSOW and JASSM were designed to share a range of features for weapons integration but that's it. The J is ever present because multiple US services planned to at one stage or do use these weapons.

Agreed. The J actually stands for "Joint" because they arose out of Joint Service development projects in their inception.

It is also a common description intended for "mass, easily digestible consumption" for modern weapons that primarily rely upon GPS/INS systems for weapons guidance and is intended to differentiate these weapons from earlier generation "smart" weapons or weapons that rely upon different targeting techniques.

If we are to be technically correct with every single post, there will be an AWFUL lot of jargon in each and every post...

AGM-154A/C JSOW, AGM-158 JASSM, GBU-31/32/38 JDAM etc etc. These are technically correct but are they really necessary for the "general" debate we are having at present?

 

[Blackmore]

Sorry for going abit of topic, in advance.

What missiles are in use with the Australian Defence Force?

I've been looking everywhere but can't find any information on it.

Thanks.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Sorry for going abit of topic, in advance.

What missiles are in use with the Australian Defence Force?

I've been looking everywhere but can't find any information on it.

Thanks.

F/A-18A/B Hornets use:

AIM-132 ASRAAM WVR air to air missiles.

AIM-120C5 AMRAAM BVR air to air missiles.

AGM-84 Block II Harpoon anti-ship missiles.

GBU-10/12/24 Paveway II laser guided bombs.

GBU-31/35/38 Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM's).

AGM-158 Joint Air to Surface Standoff Missile. (JASSM's) have been ordered and are currently undergoing integration work.

F-111's use:

AIM-9M Sidewinder WVR air to air missiles.
GBU-10/12/24 Paveway II laser guided bombs.

AGM-84 Harpoon Block II anti-ship missiles.

AGM-142 "Popeye" standoff air to surface missiles.


Our upcoming Super Hornets will use:

AIM-9X Sidewinder WVR air to air missiles.

AIM-120C5 AMRAAM BVR air to air missiles.

GBU-10/12/24 laser guided bombs.

GBU-31/35/38 Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM's).

AGM-84 Harpoon Block II anti-ship missiles.

AGM-154C Joint Standoff Weapons (JSOW).

AGM-158 Joint Air to Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM).


Of the missiles for the rest of ADF they really belong in other forums...

Suffice to say that Army has: 66mm M72A6 rockets, 84mm Carl Gustav and Javelin guided anti-tank missiles, Copperhead laser guided 155mm artillery munitions and Excalibur and SMART 155mm guided artillery munitions on order and RBS-70 surface to air missiles.

Navy has Evolved Sea Sparrow surface to air missiles (ESSM) SM-1 Standard surface to air missiles, with SM-2 Standard surface to air missiles on order, AGM and UGM-84 Harpoon anti-ship missiles, plus NULKA active decoy systems.

Now back to the Royal Australian Air Force...

 

[t68]

I don't know how old this is, but i found wedgetail on yuoutube

[ame="http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=jdhyPgPUpaI&feature=dir"]YouTube - Boeing 737 Wedgetail[/ame]

enjoy

 

[Aussie Digger]

Yep, that's a Wedgetail alright.

They are hardly "classified" however. I think the game might have been given away when the 50,000 odd visitors to Avalon Airshow in 2005 saw the Wedgetail parked on the ramp...

Plus the official stills and video footage released through the DoD website at the time, tend to indicate that perhaps there is a bit MORE footage than this guy's stuff...

Still, nice enough I suppose.

 

[winnyfield]

Yep, that's a Wedgetail alright.

They are hardly "classified" however. I think the game might have been given away when the 50,000 odd visitors to Avalon Airshow in 2005 saw the Wedgetail parked on the ramp...

Plus the official stills and video footage released through the DoD website at the time, tend to indicate that perhaps there is a bit MORE footage than this guy's stuff...

Still, nice enough I suppose.

From the RAAF's Youtube channel:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwHHEOCETNw"]YouTube - RAAF - B737 Wedgetail PTQ Royal Australian Air Force[/ame]

 

[TrueBlueAussie]

"They are hardly "classified" however. I think the game might have been given away when the 50,000 odd visitors to Avalon Airshow in 2005 saw the Wedgetail parked on the ramp..."

There was no operational Wedgetail at Avalon a Mock up yes Notice no pictures from inside it... 40 gal drums are boring

"Plus the official stills and video footage released through the DoD website at the time, tend to indicate that perhaps there is a bit MORE footage than this guy's stuff..."

There is no other footage of this aircraft with good reason. There are differances between the display aircraft and the real completed aircraft.
I just cant tell you what they are, i worked the Avionics..

Still, nice enough I suppose.

Thank you..
Paul

 

[splat]

does anyone know how grippens radar cross section,range and radar performance stack up against superhornet....

 

[Todjaeger]

does anyone know how grippens radar cross section,range and radar performance stack up against superhornet....

If someone does know that information, they most likely would not be in a position to tell anyone. That is one of the reasons why direct comparisons between aircraft are generally not allowed on DT. Those who can (or might be in a position to) give correct information are not allowed to, everyone else has to rely on publically released data which is of questionable accuracy and value.

Incidentally, why the interest? AFAIK the RAAF has not had any interest in the Grippen.

-Cheers

 

[Aussie Digger]

There was no operational Wedgetail at Avalon a Mock up yes Notice no pictures from inside it... 40 gal drums are boring

There is no operational Wedgetail even today, so this is a bit of a moot point really...

The Wedgetail at Avalon 2005 WAS the first Wedgetail airframe produced. It was flown there and was not a mock up.

See it flying for yourself...

http://www.pbase.com/stevie_j/image/41145209

There is no other footage of this aircraft with good reason. There are differances between the display aircraft and the real completed aircraft.
I just cant tell you what they are, i worked the Avionics..

There are PLENTY of images around the net and footage too, if you are prepared to look. "Fence check" would be a good start...

Regards

AD

 

[gf0012-aust]

The Wedgetail at Avalon 2005 WAS the first Wedgetail airframe produced. It was flown there and was not a mock up.

See it flying for yourself...

http://www.pbase.com/stevie_j/image/41145209



There are PLENTY of images around the net and footage too, if you are prepared to look. "Fence check" would be a good start...

Regards

AD

It's been flying around Washington for the last few months. There aren't too many MESA hats running out of Seattle.

 

[stigmata]

Does'nt the wedgetail carry any saucer shaped radar dome ??

 

[cobzz]

Does'nt the wedgetail carry any saucer shaped radar dome ??

No, it's a wedge on the tail. I believe this is because it's an AESA which obviously means the beam can be electronically controlled / split, no need for moving parts, or a saucer shape radar, as you can shape it in pretty much any way possible... I suspect a wedge is most aerodynamic.

FYI, they usually call it MESA which is Multirole Electronically Scanned Array, but it's still AESA.

 

[splat]

If someone does know that information, they most likely would not be in a position to tell anyone. That is one of the reasons why direct comparisons between aircraft are generally not allowed on DT. Those who can (or might be in a position to) give correct information are not allowed to, everyone else has to rely on publically released data which is of questionable accuracy and value.

Incidentally, why the interest? AFAIK the RAAF has not had any interest in the Grippen.

-Cheers

just curious as to the alternatives to superhornet.

 

[splat]

does anyone no the status of phoenix aam?is it still in existence?in evolved form?does usn superhornets employ them?if so are they for sale for raaf superhornets?