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

[Sea Toby]

Surely the whole 14 wont be left in the US for testing? What is the point of our buying them if they are to be left in the US?

Read up a little bit with google links about Sheppard AFB, Texas. Its more a NATO air force base than an American base. After a while, you will see the light....

The USAF will only have as many training/testing aircraft for its own use. The USAF won't provide aircraft to do these missions for other air forces. Its not like before, as I noted before, all of these nations are involved from the start with developing this aircraft. In the past everyone bought an aircraft in full production... Its the Aussie's who want to buy this aircraft ASAP. Doing so requires expenses the USAF used to shoulder itself.

Eventually, almost all of the Aussie aircraft will be in Australia.

As it is there is talk among many of the nations to buy aircraft later for a better price, leaving the USAF holding the bag of the early production expensive aircraft. Lockheed Martin is holding everyone to their early production plans. The more there are order delays from nations, the longer building more expensive aircraft will be...

If everyone cut their orders in half from the agreed upon plans, then the aircraft will surely be more expensive... Talk about self fulfilling prophecy.

 

[swerve]

As it is there is talk among many of the nations to buy aircraft later for a better price, leaving the USAF holding the bag of the early production expensive aircraft. Lockheed Martin is holding everyone to their early production plans. The more there are order delays from nations, the longer building more expensive aircraft will be...

If everyone cut their orders in half from the agreed upon plans, then the aircraft will surely be more expensive... Talk about self fulfilling prophecy.

It's a problem of the pricing model, & that is decreed by the US government.

 

[IPA35]

Just a small question, why the SH as a F-111 replaement?
The F-15E seems beter in the strike fighter role...

 

[StevoJH]

Just a small question, why the SH as a F-111 replaement?
The F-15E seems beter in the strike fighter role...

Because the F-18F was available quicker, was probably cheaper, could leverage the USN supply chain and the US has said they'd take them back in 10-15 years.

Edit: the F-18F probably also has more advanced avionics and radar then the F-15E anyway.

 

[hairyman]

Given the current timetable of production slowdown, would it not be prudent for us to buy further Super Hornets, to cover the Hornets that are getting close to their use buy date, especially if the US will buy them back off us at a reasonable price (I hope)?

 

[StevoJH]

Given the current timetable of production slowdown, would it not be prudent for us to buy further Super Hornets, to cover the Hornets that are getting close to their use buy date, especially if the US will buy them back off us at a reasonable price (I hope)?

No. The Replacement of the F-111's early means that the first F-35A's will be going to F/A-18 squadrons. This means that either the oldest F/A-18's can be retired earlier then originally planned, or can go back into the attrition reserve pool and used to prolong the life of the rest of the fleet.

 

[SpudmanWP]

First 14 will be retained in the US for training, doctrine development,, tech development, friendly work etc....

Unless someone has a link specifying the equipment staying in the US, Eglin AFB will train the Australian pilots and Maintainers on US equipment. Maintainers will train in Australia in 2015 and pilots will start to be trained in Australia in 2016.

View attachment 3806

View attachment 3807

 

[StingrayOZ]

From StingrayOz,


Sorry, we are buying the SH's not leasing them. From memory around $6Billion for every thing, aircraft,spares for around 10 years, weapons and training etc.

Cheers

Well thats interesting. I wonder what the deal exactly spells out. Leasing never really made sense IMHO. However The USN and the RAAF seem pretty chummy, so we all seem to be working in our best interests, if OZ doesn't want them any more, the USN would proberly be happy to buy them (or some) back. Growler upgrades makes them more valuable for us.

SH was the best we could do at the time. While the F-15 would have been nice, the F-18 we can upgrade to growlers around the time we get most of our F-35's.

 

[uuname]

Yes, but you seem to have overlooked the state of the F/A-18A/B Hornets in the RAAF. IIRC their availability numbers are set to begin declining right about the middle of next decade. The upcoming SHornets were just to replace the F-111C's since they were (are) being retired earlier than originally anticipated.

While the 14 early LRIP at to remain in the US for testing, it will gave Australia a chance to get some experience on the new aircraft and potentially begin to make the adjustments for operations and to doctrine to get the F-35 into RAAF service.

-Cheers

14 test aircraft just seems a very high percentage. It would be 14-20% of the overall buy. Does the RAAF really have the resources to devote such a large amount of money to bleeding edge development? Wouldn't just a few do?

The last plan I saw suggested Australia would start buying in 2011, and in lower numbers.

As it is there is talk among many of the nations to buy aircraft later for a better price, leaving the USAF holding the bag of the early production expensive aircraft. Lockheed Martin is holding everyone to their early production plans. The more there are order delays from nations, the longer building more expensive aircraft will be...

If everyone cut their orders in half from the agreed upon plans, then the aircraft will surely be more expensive... Talk about self fulfilling prophecy.

I appreciate all partner nations should do their part in early testing, but is it wise for Australia to take a leading role in a high risk endevour? I can understand it may not be acceptable to back away at this time, but that doesn't mean you have to step forward.

I'm not suggesting that aquisition should be cancelled or delayed, I just wonder how the RAAF benefits from being the first to take the plunge in such a big way. Is it really necessary to purchase such a large number of early run aircraft? Will it bring forward the IOC by a significant amount compared to 4? How capable will such early production units be? How much is it going to cost to upgrade them later? Is there any chance they will be non-upgradable in some way?

The ADF is not as large or well funded as some militaries, and cannot easily absorb the impact of a procurement problem. Perhaps I'm overly cautious, but I worry that any gaps in capability created may persist for some time. (Eg: Seasprite)

 

[Aussie Digger]

14 test aircraft just seems a very high percentage. It would be 14-20% of the overall buy. Does the RAAF really have the resources to devote such a large amount of money to bleeding edge development? Wouldn't just a few do?

Government wouldn't have provided second pass approval if the funding was unavailable...

 

[StingrayOZ]

F-35 is a very new type of aircraft. There will be a lot of training, tactics, maintence, development etc in the early years. Most other countries are in the same position so will also have aircraft in the US. So for the first few years there may be 14 in the US. When we buy our next lot they might nearly all come over to oz. But over time (perhaps a long time) they will mostly come back. I guess we will see how this pans out.

However being in the US isn't a massive disadvantage. Think of all the training opportunities etc they can do. If we need them back here we can have them back here in 48 hrs.

The F-35 should be highly upgradeable. While there are minor airframe improvements etc that usually happen, the F-35 block I should still be able to recieve all the system upgrades (unlike the F-22 debarkle) of later versions. Most of the magic happens in software. Of all the F-35 technologies the software is the part the US really wants to hold onto. Even the UK had to fight to get any sort of access.

 

[SpudmanWP]

Someone please post a link saying that the first 14 will be in the US. Eglin AFB will train the AUS pilots and maintainers and they will have their own F-35s, not AUS ones.

 

[recce.k1]

Any comments on the fantastic new ISR capabilities the ADF will have in Afghanistan?

Heron UAS Delivered to Royal Australian Air Force Troops | Air Force News at Defense Talk

Canada, Australia Contract for Heron UAVs

Will it complement or replace the AP-3C's over there?

Will it deliver ISR direct to the grunts on the ground or to an HQ?

Will it be armed (or eventually be armed) and what are the options?

Fascinating times!

 

[the road runner]

Good to see that Australia is getting acess to Heron uav.

Boeing/Australian contractors were going to supply the ADF with Herons UAS,2 years ago,but the contractors ran into technical dificulties.The contract was cancelled by the Australian Government.

Now with help from our Canadian Allies who have helped Train ADF personel on Canadian Herons.Australia has learnt alot on how the heron works/ maintained,by the Canadians.

One issue is how Australia will lease the Heron for 1 year with a possible 2 years extension.
I assume we are leasing the Heron,BUT will eventually purchase a number of Herons or alternative UAV.

regards

 

[t68]

the Su-27's which were meant to come out as part of 99 Avalon couldn't meet airworthiness reqs and weren't allowed in country

I what way was the su-27 not meet airworthness regs, ie avionics, rader Identification?

Is there any infomation on the planed fb-22 strike raptor has it been caned or is development stil being carryed out?

I would imangine if it were made it would go the same way as F22 Raptor and not for export.
It could replace Super Hornet in the strike role if it is made available.

 

[Bonza]

the Su-27's which were meant to come out as part of 99 Avalon couldn't meet airworthiness reqs and weren't allowed in country

I what way was the su-27 not meet airworthness regs, ie avionics, rader Identification?

Is there any infomation on the planed fb-22 strike raptor has it been caned or is development stil being carryed out?

I would imangine if it were made it would go the same way as F22 Raptor and not for export.
It could replace Super Hornet in the strike role if it is made available.

I highly doubt you will ever see any version of the F-22 besides what you see with the current planes. As far as I know (and as far as everything I've read says) the FB-22 never went further than the concept stage.

The Supers will be replaced by F-35 when they go back to the US, except if we chose to keep a few for dedicated EW duties. But then I might very well be wrong about that possibility, depending on how the things are actually wired and whether the RAAF feels the capability is necessary or not.

 

[t68]

deleted double post

 

[Todjaeger]

I highly doubt you will ever see any version of the F-22 besides what you see with the current planes. As far as I know (and as far as everything I've read says) the FB-22 never went further than the concept stage.

The Supers will be replaced by F-35 when they go back to the US, except if we chose to keep a few for dedicated EW duties. But then I might very well be wrong about that possibility, depending on how the things are actually wired and whether the RAAF feels the capability is necessary or not.

I would not be so quick to dismiss the FB-22... Granted, AFAIK it is just a 'paper' airplane, IMO there is still the potential for it to become a 'real' aircraft. I have gotten the impression that the USAF would like to have a platform that is approximately in the weight class the F-111 is in.

The USAF had (has, is?) provided CAS to forces in Afghanistan using B-1, B-2 & B-52 strategic bombers loaded with PGMs and operated from bases in the mainland US and Guam. This was done because these aircraft could provide volumes of CAS far greater than the multi-role fighters available could. There aircraft were operated from the US and territories IMO to keep them safe from the risk of trashfire during takeoff & landing, or attack or sabotage while on the ground, as these aircraft are for all intents and purposes, irreplacable. Being strategic bombers, these aircraft do have the range for the mission, but it is expensive to fly so far and then loiter around and wearing on the aircraft and crew.

I believe the USAF would like to have a smaller platform (than the strategic bombers) which can be based in theatre, able to carry a significant warload and fast enough to respond quickly, but also capable of penetrating IADS. In short, what the F-111 used to be able to do.

I am not aware of any official programmes to develop such an aircraft, but this has more to do with the lack of available funding I think. Time will tell if the Boeing idea every gets off the ground.

-Cheers

 

[Bonza]

I would not be so quick to dismiss the FB-22... Granted, AFAIK it is just a 'paper' airplane, IMO there is still the potential for it to become a 'real' aircraft. I have gotten the impression that the USAF would like to have a platform that is approximately in the weight class the F-111 is in.

The USAF had (has, is?) provided CAS to forces in Afghanistan using B-1, B-2 & B-52 strategic bombers loaded with PGMs and operated from bases in the mainland US and Guam. This was done because these aircraft could provide volumes of CAS far greater than the multi-role fighters available could. There aircraft were operated from the US and territories IMO to keep them safe from the risk of trashfire during takeoff & landing, or attack or sabotage while on the ground, as these aircraft are for all intents and purposes, irreplacable. Being strategic bombers, these aircraft do have the range for the mission, but it is expensive to fly so far and then loiter around and wearing on the aircraft and crew.

I believe the USAF would like to have a smaller platform (than the strategic bombers) which can be based in theatre, able to carry a significant warload and fast enough to respond quickly, but also capable of penetrating IADS. In short, what the F-111 used to be able to do.

I am not aware of any official programmes to develop such an aircraft, but this has more to do with the lack of available funding I think. Time will tell if the Boeing idea every gets off the ground.

-Cheers

All good points, but with money tight and the JSF inbound, by the time they get around to reviving the "regional bomber" I think we're more likely to see it take the shape of an unmanned system rather than a follow-on to an existing fighter. But then, there's no reason why FB-22 would have to be manned, I guess... considering the problems they've had with the F-22 though, if such an aircraft ever eventuated I'd guess it would end up having more in common with the JSF.

I dunno, it depends on what set of requirements you're looking at. I'm basing my observations more on the 2018 Bomber requirements (or what's in the public eye, anyway) rather than what would be the most appropriate replacement for the F-111. From what I've read they want high subsonic and high LO capabilities - and considering what I've read of X-47b/etc and the timeframe involved, it seems perfect for a UCAV.

But then that's just one set of requirements.

 

[hairyman]

Originally Posted by hairyman
The only items of equipment that we are not buying that I would consider under this premise, is the Su34, which to my mind is the best replacement for the F111 available, but since it is Russian, we wont have a bar of it, unfortunately. We already buy equipment from other countries beside the US, with the recent lease of the Heron from Israel, our european helcopters and tankers.
This was posted on the Naval Thread. I have transferred it to here for appropriate discussion.