Todjaeger
Potstirrer
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #1,901
IMO the most significant reasons why there is no direct, exact replacement for the mission/role the F-111 played in the RAAF is that it was a mission which was ceasing to exist.
The F-111 was originally acquired with the idea that they would serve as delivery systems for atomic/nuclear weaponry, thus they needed sufficient range to reach potential threat nations (largely Indonesia) and the ability to evade detection and/or escape hostile aircraft.
By the time they actually entered service (c.~1973 IIRC) Australia had signed the NPT prior to domestic development of nuclear weapons, therefore the nuclear delivery role ceased to exist. Instead, they were roled with a similar albeit conventional strike role.
Fast forward nearly four decades and look at the systems which have been developed which can aid the defender. There has been significant improvement in both the performance and variety of sensors available. This means that how the F-111 used to evade detection, by low-level flight, will not work as well. Additionally, there is a greater utilization of datalinks and airborne sensing platforms, which means that if/when the strike package is detected, its presence is more apt to be relayed to forces which can act against it. There are greater numbers of very high speed aircraft capable of interecepting the F-111, along with significantly greater numbers of high speed BVR missiles, which means that the F-111 is less able to escape when engaged. In short, the F-111 is no longer able to deliver a strike package to a target without escort in contested airspace. IMO the same situation holds true for the Su-34, or any other similar sort of aircraft that does not have significant improvements in its ability to either evade detection, and/or escape if detected.
Now looking at the other side of development, there has been significant development in aircraft which evade detection through sensor and sig management. These aircraft, known as Low Observable (LO) aircraft, when properly employed are still able to close with or in some cases penetrate defended airspace without triggering a response from the defender. Additionally, with the expansion of the types of guidance available the use of PGMs has expanded drastically and at the same time reduced the quantity of ordnance which must be dropped to achieve the desired effect. For example, in WWII if a bridge had to be dropped, an entire bomber squadron or perhaps bomber group might be tasked with the mission, and depending on their performance they might be tasked with the same mission repeatedly over several days. With current weaponry available aboard modern strike aircraft, a single aircraft can usually accomplish the mission in one pass, sometimes using just one bomb or PGM. Related to and expanding the impact of PGMs is the use of standoff weaponry. A strike aircraft no longer needs to get close to the target in order to successfully carry out the mission. Instead, the striking aircraft can now launch standoff weaponry at the target from dozens to hundreds of km away. All of which means the defender has less chance of know what the actual target is, making defence more difficult. It also reduces the time which the strike aircraft is exposed to detection and/or interception and the subsequent effect that has on mission survivability.
In short, the RAAF has found that there are better ways of doing what it wants/needs done which had not been available before.
What would be interesting to see is if a new dedicated strike aircraft along the lines of the suggested FB-22 would be of interest to the RAAF. Namely something that is LO, has significant ordnance delivery capacity, and sufficient range to bomb targets directly as well as use standoff munitions.
-Cheers
