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

[Air Force]

Does anyone know what type of armament Australia has got with Super Hornets?

 

[t68]

If memory serves me correct the only reason that the RAAF lost the rotary assets was inter service rivalry in the first place,

AD i see what you mean regarding the Hercules being under utilised for some ops, but Spartan being larger and heavier will still encounter the same problem’s in the pacific highlands on where it would operate in place of the Caribou, fair enough in the Middle East AO C27J will excel for the RAAF.

I think Todjaeger has hit the nail on the head what mix does the ADF require and in what numbers?

 

[Aussie Digger]

Does anyone know what type of armament Australia has got with Super Hornets?

Aim-9x WVR missiles.

Aim-120C5/7 AMRAAM missiles.

20mm M61a2 cannon.

Mk 82, 83, 84 and BLU-109 bombs.

Paveway II - GBU-10, 12 and 16 Laser guided bombs.

Paveway III - GBU-24 Laser guided bombs

GBU-31 and GBU-38 JDAM, with GBU-54/55 Laser JDAM planned.

AGM-84 Harpoon Block II anti-ship missiles.

AGM-154C JSOW standoff weapon, with AGM-154C1 upgrade planned.

They are the main weapon systems...

 

[Air Force]

@Aussie Digger, well done, thank you!

 

[Aussie Digger]

@Aussie Digger, well done, thank you!

No problems. As a matter of interest, our legacy Hornet fleet uses a largely similar weapons inventory.

The main differences are:

AIM-132 ASRAAM WVR missile instead of AIM-9X.

AGM-158 Joint air to surface standoff missile (JASSM) instead of AGM-154C JSOW. Or at least they will, when IOC is announced a bit later this year (around late June, early July I understand).

No Paveway III - GBU-24, I believe.

Earlier M61a1 20mm cannon variant.

They are also slated to receive the GBU-38 JDAM-ER with an Australian designed wingkit added to provide a greater standoff capability for our JDAM munitions. I'm not sure the Supers will get this (or even need it really, given they already have AGM-154C JSOW).

 

[Aussie Digger]

If memory serves me correct the only reason that the RAAF lost the rotary assets was inter service rivalry in the first place,

Not really. Army was the sole customer for RAAF helo capability. It made no real sense for RAAF to be operating them, with their different culture and appreciation of the relative importance of things...

RAAF really only operated them because "that's the way it had always been done", not because it was better or more efficient.

If you based your service force structures soley on that idea, then Air Force would be equipped with nothing, because ADF's first aircraft belonged to the Army Air Corps, IIRC...

AD, i see what you mean regarding the Hercules being under utilised for some ops, but Spartan being larger and heavier will still encounter the same problem’s in the pacific highlands on where it would operate in place of the Caribou, fair enough in the Middle East AO C27J will excel for the RAAF.

I think Todjaeger has hit the nail on the head what mix does the ADF require and in what numbers?

There are a few issues with the popular "New Gineau highlands" issue though.

1. The DHC-4, can operate off amazingly short runways true, but only when operating near empty, AFAIK. It's lift capacity is in any case, quite poor compared to modern airlifters.

2. The DHC-4 possesses no capability to operate in a modern battlespace and it's range and cruise speed is pretty ordinary.

3. The C-27J is no slouch itself in the short takeoff department and can take off from much shorter distances than a C-130. Plus it has the power to carry a decent load whilst doing so and the capability to operate in a modern battlespace, plus carries loads in the same configuration and pallet size as the C-130.

4. Many "Caribou only" airports within PNG and the South Pacific have in fact been upgraded in recent years and there are sufficient C-130 capable airfields that make the use of an airlifter such as the DHC-4 obsolete, according to RAAF. If these can take C-130 operations, C-27J operations wouldn't be an issue, I shouldn't think, so then we get back to the cost per mission issues...

On top of which, I understand SOCOMD are particularly interested in the long range insertion opportunities a C-27J (or similar, as afterall, it hasn't been chosen yet) might provide...

 

[Marc 1]

We need more chinooks. We can't operationally deploy ourselves effectively with what we have got right now.

Agreed.

CASA CN-235 I believe are used for antartic research. There may be specific areas where these aircraft might be useful, but that does not mean we need a fleet of them for the ADF. This may be worthwhile to talk to NZ about operating these specifically for pacific logistics and southern research.
.

No, they are CN212 - 400's. Much smaller, slower and less capable.

 

[hairyman]

From this months ADM.

JSF procurement costs soar
09 Apr 2010


The Joint Strike Fighter program's total procurement cost has soared to $US329 billion and the unit cost to $US135 million, reflecting a nearly 90 per cent jump in the price of each F-35 since 2001, according to a Pentagon report released 19 March.

As a result, will most countries including Australia, reduce their number of F-35's they will purchase?

 

[t68]

That’s an increase of 50%, if that’s the case I can’t see the 100 air frames coming, 70 airframes and an additional buy of SH is on the cards.
Boeing might be reading the tea leaves which would put them in the box seat when negotiating new airframes

 

[StevoJH]

That’s an increase of 50%, if that’s the case I can’t see the 100 air frames coming, 70 airframes and an additional buy of SH is on the cards.
Boeing might be reading the tea leaves which would put them in the box seat when negotiating new airframes

70 F-35's would mean keeping the current F-18F's rather then handing them over to the USN, it would not mean ordering more.

Current plans are:
24 F-18F
~70 F-35

then
24 F-18F --> USN
~70 F-35 + ~30 more F-35 purchased.

 

[jack412]

From this months ADM.

JSF procurement costs soar
09 Apr 2010


The Joint Strike Fighter program's total procurement cost has soared to $US329 billion and the unit cost to $US135 million, reflecting a nearly 90 per cent jump in the price of each F-35 since 2001, according to a Pentagon report released 19 March.

As a result, will most countries including Australia, reduce their number of F-35's they will purchase?

that information seems incorrect for australia
Australia working on jets payments
March 30, 2010
Australia won't have to pay more for the Joint Strike Fighters (JSF) it has on order despite US estimates that the cost of each aircraft will exceed $100 million.

The federal government will purchase up to 100 of the aircraft - with the first entering service in 2018 - at a price tag of '08AU$ 75 million each.

Australia was not paying its full share of development costs and only planned to acquire the conventional takeoff and landing variant, head of the Defence Materiel Organisation Stephen Gumley told a Senate hearing on Tuesday.

 

[Mick73]

It is funny that we seem to be swaping our F111's with a more capable F/A18 and then swap out our F/A18's with what looks like a more capable light strike platform.

I would like to see 1and 6 Sqn get the F35's and the rest get super hornets! Why is the need to have that much stealth...and who are we going to use it on? Air shows and sports events!

We need a replacement now...we can still get them, just I don't see the need for 70+ (I laughed when I heard 100 and still don't think 70 will happen) F35 type aircraft! The super hornet will do us and a much cheaper option...

 

[jack412]

going by the DMO, would you rather fa-18f at aud 60 mil or f-35 at aud 75 mil ?

 

[Mick73]

going by the DMO, would you rather fa-18f at aud 60 mil or f-35 at aud 75 mil ?

I would rather have a replacement coming online now rather than later with something that can and has done the job...the DMO double talk is always kind of funny...they say things like "it is battle proven" when it suits them...15mil x 70 saving would do a lot to offset some of their other bungles. Remember we are dealing with a general population who neither cares or want this money spend on toys of war and would rather see it go into healthcare or education.

 

[localhost127]

I would like to see 1and 6 Sqn get the F35's and the rest get super hornets! Why is the need to have that much stealth...and who are we going to use it on? Air shows and sports events!

.

so you think the only thing the f-35 brings to the table is LO/stealth? what about the plethora of other networking/data link/situational awareness tools and sensors it brings to the table? do you feel those would be wasted capabilities?

 

[Mick73]

so you think the only thing the f-35 brings to the table is LO/stealth? what about the plethora of other networking/data link/situational awareness tools and sensors it brings to the table? do you feel those would be wasted capabilities?

Very much so! For our region yes...what is the point of having a platform like the F35 in those numbers when we don't have a threat...talk about putting our neighbours off side... I dob't believe the the F35 is suitable for our needs. I don't see the 144mil IIRC that we have spent buying into this project for only level 3 and to save 500mil...well this is just smoke and mirrors. The operating costs will be huge and i don't think we will have the needs for this kind i platform. Now i am not saying that this is a bad a/c but history has shown when it comes to bringing in something new we sure know how the stuff with until it gets delayed...i.e. the ARH...we should have it over in A-stan supporting our chooks! The french have theirs...why is that!
Anyway nuff said...i will be either proved right or wrong...time will tell!

 

[Aussie Digger]

Very much so! For our region yes...what is the point of having a platform like the F35 in those numbers when we don't have a threat...talk about putting our neighbours off side... I dob't believe the the F35 is suitable for our needs. I don't see the 144mil IIRC that we have spent buying into this project for only level 3 and to save 500mil...well this is just smoke and mirrors. The operating costs will be huge and i don't think we will have the needs for this kind i platform. Now i am not saying that this is a bad a/c but history has shown when it comes to bringing in something new we sure know how the stuff with until it gets delayed...i.e. the ARH...we should have it over in A-stan supporting our chooks! The french have theirs...why is that!
Anyway nuff said...i will be either proved right or wrong...time will tell!

I agree with the idea about less F-35's for Australia and have called for much the same thing. I would like to see a predominantly Super Hornet force, with a few Growler's thrown in, bought immediately to replace our very tired legacy Hornet fleet and the F-35's brought in smaller numbers further down the track, when the production has matured. The only reason we are getting in so early is to replace the old tired Hornets as early as possible. Well we could replace them 5 years earlier with Super Hornets...

The reasons why this would be a more than sufficient plan IMHO are:

1. The RAAF considered the Legacy Hornets alone, sufficient for our air combat needs, given our regional environment in the next 10 years, between 2002 until 2007.

2. The USN rates the Super Hornet Block II approximately 3 times as capable as their F/A-18C/D aircraft, which are basically of the same standard as our legacy Hornet jets. If the Super Hornet is 3x as capable as our legacy jets and our legacy jets are good enough in RAAF's opinion for our threat environment until 2020....

3. However regional air forces are improving (albeit slowly) and GBAD threats are too, so I have no problem acquiring an LO fighter capability for RAAF in future years and think that the acquisition of same will be at best matched, but not exceeded within our region during the lifetime of the capability. What I object to is buying LRIP airframes at the high price they will be at, when it is, IMHO most unnecessary given our threat environment.

I would therefore propose that an additional 47-50 Super Hornet airframes be acquired and operated within 3x fighter/strike squadrons by RAAF, replacing the bulk of our Hornet fleet. A single squadron of upgraded Hornets be retained, those primarily which have benefited from the CBR program (11x airframes IIRC) and those with the most remaining airframe life, supported perhaps by a small "maintenance pool" of additional airframes.

At most 30x Hornet airframes would be retained under such a plan, with 41x of the most tired airframes retired. A significant amount of modern equipment provided for these jets under HUG, plus F404 engines etc may be able to be sold, recouping some of the HUG cost, if the aircraft as a whole cannot be sold, ala Mirage III's to Pakistan.

There are Countries desperate for more legacy Hornet airframes (ie: Finland) that may be willing to purchase all or some of these airframes and give them the SLEP (expensive though it may be) they desperately require. Alternatively roughly 41x airframes may prove attractive as a package, despite the tired airframes, especially if they remain in their HUG guise...

The 3x Super Hornet Squadrons would also be enhanced in the mid "twenty teens" (I thought of that BTW...) by following the USN block upgrade plan for the Super Hornet and with an upgrade of 6-8 airframes to a Growler standard, giving us an AEA capability, that we have lacked for so long...

When the F-35 is finally a mature program, with known stable costs, a smaller acquisition to replace the final Hornet capability and support or "quarter-back" the Super Hornet force with an LO fighter capability would provide all the capability we are going to require over the next 30 years IMHO.

I don't care much for RAAF's "support costs of 2 fighters" argument. The F-35 is not going to prove cheaper to run than a Super Hornet in all likelyhood, we are a reasonably wealthy country AND can afford to run 2x fighter types and though I don't overly rate the "single fighter risks us strategically if grounded argument" either it would at least provide some insurance against such an event. Finally, I don't at all subscribe to the argument that the Super Hornet Block II+ is over-matched within our region on a qualitative basis and given the USN upgrade plan, don't see this changing much.

The RAAF air combat group structure would then have a sound mix of modern, capable fighters with strengths in different areas, that will be in-service in the majority, much sooner than RAAF's current plan, provide much better capability in the meantime and provide more than enough capability in the longer term, with a likely reduced overall cost.

 

[t68]

But all these capabilities you refer to ARE different. The F/A-18A/B is our tactical fighter. The F-111 is a pure striker with limited to no air to air capability.

If the F/A-18A/B fleet is grounded we have no effective air defence capability. Sure, we could do some point defence with F-111 and Hawk, but against a serious air threat, we will be vulnerable. But if a major grounding occurs on whatever combination of aircraft we operate, we will be in serious trouble.

As to the dual types, we have NEVER had a dual A2A/strike capability with 2 separate fleets of multi-role fighters before and we only will with the Super Hornet because of the delays to the JSF.

If it had been on time we would be operating F/A-18A/B by itself providing ALL air to air and strike capability until JSF came on line.

As can plainly be seen by Air Force's plans, they are not concerned about a potential loss of capability with operating a sole air combat aircraft type, nor with operating a sole aircraft type with a single engine. Are they the experts in these matters, or not?

I do not see it an effective use of scarce defence funds to continue to operate a second-class air combat capabIility, when we COULD operate a first class capability across the entire force. The only argument against it, is a scare tactic that a single engine might fail, resulting in the loss of an aircraft. There is absolutely no evidence to back up the "dangerous" aircraft argument, other than the extremely simplistic "what if". Well what if both fleets are grounded? What do we do THEN? Buy a third type? Where does it end?

A casual glance at the flight and engine testing conducted to date, has shown no such evidence that the F135 is likely to be an unreliable engine. Yes birdstrikes, FOD etc can occur and are completely independent of the aircraft type, but such issues effect twin engined fighters too.

I don't mean to belittle your argument, but the Super is PURELY a bridging aircraft. It should NOT remain in RAAF service beyond 2025, purely on a capability basis and according to the current Chief of Air Force, it will not be... Unless something superior to the F-35 is available, then we should stick with a sole F-35 based air combat force.

Perhaps UCAV's might be a viable prospect for the 3rd batch of AIR-6000 fighters and we'll see a dual tactical fighter force. That will be the only way it will happen though, unless Defence loses all sway over the Government with respect to air power issues...

I agree with the idea about less F-35's for Australia and have called for much the same thing. I would like to see a predominantly Super Hornet force, with a few Growler's thrown in, bought immediately to replace our very tired legacy Hornet fleet and the F-35's brought in smaller numbers further down the track, when the production has matured. The only reason we are getting in so early is to replace the old tired Hornets as early as possible. Well we could replace them 5 years earlier with Super Hornets...

The reasons why this would be a more than sufficient plan IMHO are:

1. The RAAF considered the Legacy Hornets alone, sufficient for our air combat needs, given our regional environment in the next 10 years, between 2002 until 2007.

2. The USN rates the Super Hornet Block II approximately 3 times as capable as their F/A-18C/D aircraft, which are basically of the same standard as our legacy Hornet jets. If the Super Hornet is 3x as capable as our legacy jets and our legacy jets are good enough in RAAF's opinion for our threat environment until 2020....

3. However regional air forces are improving (albeit slowly) and GBAD threats are too, so I have no problem acquiring an LO fighter capability for RAAF in future years and think that the acquisition of same will be at best matched, but not exceeded within our region during the lifetime of the capability. What I object to is buying LRIP airframes at the high price they will be at, when it is, IMHO most unnecessary given our threat environment.

I would therefore propose that an additional 47-50 Super Hornet airframes be acquired and operated within 3x fighter/strike squadrons by RAAF, replacing the bulk of our Hornet fleet. A single squadron of upgraded Hornets be retained, those primarily which have benefited from the CBR program (11x airframes IIRC) and those with the most remaining airframe life, supported perhaps by a small "maintenance pool" of additional airframes.

At most 30x Hornet airframes would be retained under such a plan, with 41x of the most tired airframes retired. A significant amount of modern equipment provided for these jets under HUG, plus F404 engines etc may be able to be sold, recouping some of the HUG cost, if the aircraft as a whole cannot be sold, ala Mirage III's to Pakistan.

There are Countries desperate for more legacy Hornet airframes (ie: Finland) that may be willing to purchase all or some of these airframes and give them the SLEP (expensive though it may be) they desperately require. Alternatively roughly 41x airframes may prove attractive as a package, despite the tired airframes, especially if they remain in their HUG guise...

The 3x Super Hornet Squadrons would also be enhanced in the mid "twenty teens" (I thought of that BTW...) by following the USN block upgrade plan for the Super Hornet and with an upgrade of 6-8 airframes to a Growler standard, giving us an AEA capability, that we have lacked for so long...

When the F-35 is finally a mature program, with known stable costs, a smaller acquisition to replace the final Hornet capability and support or "quarter-back" the Super Hornet force with an LO fighter capability would provide all the capability we are going to require over the next 30 years IMHO.

I don't care much for RAAF's "support costs of 2 fighters" argument. The F-35 is not going to prove cheaper to run than a Super Hornet in all likelyhood, we are a reasonably wealthy country AND can afford to run 2x fighter types and though I don't overly rate the "single fighter risks us strategically if grounded argument" either it would at least provide some insurance against such an event. Finally, I don't at all subscribe to the argument that the Super Hornet Block II+ is over-matched within our region on a qualitative basis and given the USN upgrade plan, don't see this changing much.

The RAAF air combat group structure would then have a sound mix of modern, capable fighters with strengths in different areas, that will be in-service in the majority, much sooner than RAAF's current plan, provide much better capability in the meantime and provide more than enough capability in the longer term, with a likely reduced overall cost.

I agree with your last, but what has happened to change your mind that the RAAF only require F35A and Super Hornet is only needed as an interim platform?

 

[Mick73]

This is what I would like to see happen too...

Concidering the other services planned projects and the up coming "mining boom" (within 12mths), I believe if we moved towards the SH now and then bring in the F35 we can have a modern defence force equipt with very capable systems.

We will and are going to be spending a "crap load" of money on defence and at this time I don't believe we have the need as yet for the F35.

I like the Growler idea... it would give an added deterent as the F111 did so well during its service!

Interesting time to come I think!

 

[luccloud]

Who are the primary threat for Australia? Given the shapes of nearby countries' AF, even SH seem overkill, let along F35.