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

[Bonza]

You get the range squared away with SH, looking at F35B in light of options when there is no infrastructure for the likes of SH or F35A with it VTOL capabilty, not necessary in continental Australia IE pacific islands, plus you have AAR for F35B.

How are you going to maintain an AAR capability if your fighters are operating from STOVL-only operating areas? Remember you don't just have to get tankers there, you have to maintain tanker coverage in order for the AAR to be significant. How long is it going to take tankers to get there? How long can they stay in the area before they have to return to base? Do you have sufficient tankers to maintain a presence in the region sufficient to support sustained fast jet operations? Will the loss of a single tanker significantly limit overall tanker coverage?

I don't mean to shoot questions at you, but if you're talking AAR capability over areas without the infrastructure to support it, they're important issues.

I mean I see what you're getting at, but the question is this: why would you want to deploy your most expensive, most capable air assets outside of your capacity to support them completely? I don't know that there would ever be a need for such a thing... if you're talking deployment outside of Australia's immediate region you're very likely to be talking deployment as part of a coalition with the US (which opens up many basing options), in which case is there really a need for STOVL?

Again I hope the tone of this doesn't come off as aggressive, I just think one could make a stronger case for the CTOL variant in general, and that there are questions around the benefits offered by a STOVL variant (for Australia).

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

I would disagree somewhat on the Tiffy being generally comparable to the Shornet, at least at the current stage of development. The Shornet is a true multi-role fighter with 4.5 Gen avionics and AESA (at least in Block II and presumably also in upcoming Block III). The Tiffy AFAIK is not yet a real multi-role fighter (at least to the extent the SHornet is) apart from some RAF Tranche 2 airframes which had a crash modification programme done on them after production. Tranche 3 IIRC was to be where development was done to allow use of targeting pods, standoff and PGMs, basically the whole gamut of muntions normally expected in a multi-role fighter.

The Tiffy would I expect fair better in an air to air engagement, being faster and likely more maneuverable, but then again when the programme was launched, it was planned to deliver a fighter/interceptor aircraft.

This is what I meant by broadly comparable though, at the minute (and probably always) the Rhino BII has more avionics options and a better weapons suite but the Typhoon enjoys superior manoeuvrability (in most flight regimes; I'd wager the Rhino would have a smaller turning radius and better energy management characteristics at low speed) and superior kinematic performance.

Compared to 5th gen platforms I’d call that broadly comparable.

Once the AESA is settled on, then a Tiffy would likely dominate in an air to air engagement with an SHornet.

I don’t think it would dominate a rhino; just because a platform has an AESA doesn’t mean it has a well developed AN/APG-79. I doubt CAPTOR-E will ever be as capable as the AN/APG-79 simply because it’s so much further down it’s development curve.

Plus IIRC the F/A-18F BII has a fully digital RWR and Typhoon doesn't, although the ESM may make up for it somewhat (Scorp will probably correct me there). The only real advantage a Typhoon would have is top sprint speed and cruise speed, although BIII will probably give the Rhino a better T/W ratio. We can assume the Rhino will field a mature EA capability first, considering its AESA is actually in operation on large numbers of fighters. In the BVR regime I don't see how that equates to domination for the Typhoon.

But again, this is something which is still being developed, like the multi-role functionality of the Tiffy. This means that the programmes could still fall over, and/or be ordered in such small lots as to cause significant per-unit costs. Either of which could make the Tiffy an inappropriate alternate choice for the RAAF if the F-35 does fall over.

Not to mention timeframe, the Rhino does all of that stuff right now. I don’t know why we would even consider another platform.

 

[aussienscale]

If Australia where to go down the mixed fleet route for the RAAF supporting both Super Hornet and F35 JSF, would F35B be more appropriate not looking at exclusively putting them on the LHD but a more flexible airframe for use in the pacific or elsewhere not have a runway to takeoff and land, IE if they could use an existing large concrete area truck parking area or a large field to stage out of. Not sure how the F35B would go on an unprepared field for the engine FOD (foreign object damage).

Would the extra flexibility for the RAAF be worth the extra dollars this would incur?

If the F35B is capably of use these other areas would a fleet of 75 SH and 40 F35B be more appropriate buy for the RAAF?

I think addng some F35B's to the RAAF order would be a good thing for them to operate as needed from the LHD's. It would not be pratical for them to go to the Fleet Air Arm for such a small number of airframes.
As I understand it verticle take off has limitations on load carried ? That is why you take off in short mode with the assistance of a ski jump, then land light in the verticle mode
Please correct me if I am wrong

 

[PeterM]

If we assume (hypothetically) that the RAAF goes with an increased number of Super Hornets and less F-35s, then that makes it less likley to get any F-35B (not that they are on the table), then we are likely to need F-35A for the (probably 2) frontline squadrons at Tindal and Williamstown.

In my opinion, it would make more sense to get 12 EF-18G to increase the Superhornet strike capability.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

If we assume (hypothetically) that the RAAF goes with an increased number of Super Hornets and less F-35s, then that makes it less likley to get any F-35B (not that they are on the table), then we are likely to need F-35A for the (probably 2) frontline squadrons at Tindal and Williamstown.

In my opinion, it would make more sense to get 12 EF-18G to increase the Superhornet strike capability.

AFAIK we already have 12 F/A-18F wired for Growler conversion. EA variants should not replace front line fighter strength IMHO; they should be an additional capability.

 

[hairyman]

Not wanting to be pedantic, but is'nt it 11 Super Hornets wired for Growler?

 

[StevoJH]

Not wanting to be pedantic, but is'nt it 11 Super Hornets wired for Growler?

No. I'm fairly sure it was 12.

 

[parvas24]

so when is the RAAF getting these F 35 ..... and how many of them ......I heard reports that the USA is not going to incorporate certain materials on the mainframe and certain electronic components
to NATO and its allies as they are strictly meant for USAF only.... is RAAF gonna get a better deal compared to the rest .....:smokie

 

[gf0012-aust]

so when is the RAAF getting these F 35 ..... and how many of them ......I heard reports that the USA is not going to incorporate certain materials on the mainframe and certain electronic components
to NATO and its allies as they are strictly meant for USAF only.... is RAAF gonna get a better deal compared to the rest .....:smokie

1) google is your friend. try it before asking some questions......

2) yes, thats why the Aust DSTO has developed an EWarfare package which is being trialled on the CATBird...

unfort the internet rubbish about what the US is giving and allowing doesn't stand up to the reality of whats actually happening...

this urban myth just doesn't die....

 

[Aussie Digger]

so when is the RAAF getting these F 35 ..... and how many of them ......I heard reports that the USA is not going to incorporate certain materials on the mainframe and certain electronic components
to NATO and its allies as they are strictly meant for USAF only.... is RAAF gonna get a better deal compared to the rest .....:smokie

RAAF has plans to order approximately 72x F-35A aircraft to replace our existing F/A-18A/B Hornet fleet.

72x F-35A's will provide RAAF with 3x operational fighter squadrons, an Operational Conversion Unit (2 OCU) and aircraft for training, development and attrition.

RAAF plans to make a follow-on purchase of additional F-35A to replace our interim F/A-18F Super Hornet fleet and bring our operational force up to 4x operational fighter squadrons, plus support units, with a total fleet of approximately 100x F-35A aircraft.

RAAF plans to order it's first 72x aircraft in 2x batches, one of 14x aircraft and one of 58x aircraft. The initial 14x aircraft are expected to enter service in 2014 and will be based in the USA for initial training and capability development activities.

The remaining 58x aircraft are expected to enter service with RAAF in 2017, with a squadron level initial operating capability expected in 2018 and all 3x squadrons fully operational by 2021 (FOC), with the Hornets entirely phased out by then.

The additional batch of up to 28x F-35A's is expected to enter service in 2023, with FOC expected in 2025 and the Super Hornets fully phased out in the same year.

Australia entered the F-35 program as a Level III partner and invested $150m into the System Design and Development (SDD) phase. This gave us many benefits, including input into the design and development of the aircraft (commensurate with our level of investment sure, but we still got some say in how it was developed).

It also gave us the opportunity to embed Australian Defence Force staff and DSTO engineers, into the F-35 Joint Program Office, giving us full insight into the capabilities of the aircraft and constant access to the full details of development activities.

It also means, that we gain access to the SAME aircraft that USAF will be flying. Our level of stealth and the capability of our sensors, weapons and avionics will be the same as that operated by USAF. We don't get access to source codes, but then no-one ever does. Not legally anyway... It is the same as if you buy a copy of Windows 7. Do you get the source codes with it, or merely a licence to use the software?

Because we invested in SDD, it also means that we avoid paying development costs and FMS costs for the aircraft. If a Country that wants to buy the aircraft, but didn't invest in SDD, they will most likely be subject to paying a premium for it's development costs and also FMS access costs.

So from a cost and capability point of view, not to mention preferential access to airframes from the production line, as well as industry work share and overall insight and input into the program, Australia most definitely does an advantage compared to Countries that did not invest in the SDD phase.

Hope this is what you were after.

Cheers

AD

 

[Aussie Digger]

No. I'm fairly sure it was 12.

Yep, 12x. RAAF never wanted that many, but the former Defence Minister, needed some news to try and deflect the attention away from his issues with a certain Chinese lady...

So he went and signed up for 12x aircraft to be wired up, that will probably never employ a Growler capability and RAAF has to fly half it's Super Hornet fleet with a heavier airframe of no use (to them) for the entirety of their lives...

 

[Aussie Digger]

AFAIK we already have 12 F/A-18F wired for Growler conversion. EA variants should not replace front line fighter strength IMHO; they should be an additional capability.

I wouldn't worry about that. I am extremely pessimistic that Australia will EVER see an indigenous Growler capability...

 

[Aussie Digger]

I think addng some F35B's to the RAAF order would be a good thing for them to operate as needed from the LHD's. It would not be pratical for them to go to the Fleet Air Arm for such a small number of airframes.
As I understand it verticle take off has limitations on load carried ? That is why you take off in short mode with the assistance of a ski jump, then land light in the verticle mode
Please correct me if I am wrong

You're not wrong about how they operate, but you are wrong about ADF needing to operate F-35B's from it's LHD's.

The LHD's are NOT designed to support F-35B as an aircraft carrier. It has been explained ad infiniteum that not even Spain will be using them for such.

Spain will only be using them to keep pilots current when their ACTUAL carrier is not at sea. The LHD is not intended to support the F-35B (or even the AV-8B for that matter) for operational taskings, only training when their real carrier is not available.

ADF has no intention of doing so and should not. They are entirely the wrong type of ship, for such a role. Just because they are big and have a flat top, doesn't mean they can be used as an operational aircraft carrier.

God, the continual re-hashing of this topic annoys me...

:gun

 

[gf0012-aust]

We don't get access to source codes, but then no-one ever does. Not legally anyway... It is the same as if you buy a copy of Windows 7. Do you get the source codes with it, or merely a licence to use the software?

we are certainly getting access to critical source code though. the fact that DSTO has an ewarfare system hooked into the CATbird means that we have integrated into substantial parts of the platforms operating and weapons systems suite.

I'd add that we are also involved in the C3I3 space with JSF - that certainly hammers the tinfoil brigades view that we are getting a less capable asset. (as per your reinforcement in all of your other comments)

 

[Bonza]

Yep, 12x. RAAF never wanted that many, but the former Defence Minister, needed some news to try and deflect the attention away from his issues with a certain Chinese lady...

So he went and signed up for 12x aircraft to be wired up, that will probably never employ a Growler capability and RAAF has to fly half it's Super Hornet fleet with a heavier airframe of no use (to them) for the entirety of their lives...

Preach on... I only pray we never see such an untrustworthy piece of garbage in his position ever again...

God, the continual re-hashing of this topic annoys me...

Agreed, it seems to get a lot of attention. Maybe something could be stickied, so people can be easily referred to a single link rather than people having to explain it over and over again?

 

[parvas24]

RAAF has plans to order approximately 72x F-35A aircraft to replace our existing F/A-18A/B Hornet fleet.

72x F-35A's will provide RAAF with 3x operational fighter squadrons, an Operational Conversion Unit (2 OCU) and aircraft for training, development and attrition.

RAAF plans to make a follow-on purchase of additional F-35A to replace our interim F/A-18F Super Hornet fleet and bring our operational force up to 4x operational fighter squadrons, plus support units, with a total fleet of approximately 100x F-35A aircraft.

RAAF plans to order it's first 72x aircraft in 2x batches, one of 14x aircraft and one of 58x aircraft. The initial 14x aircraft are expected to enter service in 2014 and will be based in the USA for initial training and capability development activities.

The remaining 58x aircraft are expected to enter service with RAAF in 2017, with a squadron level initial operating capability expected in 2018 and all 3x squadrons fully operational by 2021 (FOC), with the Hornets entirely phased out by then.

The additional batch of up to 28x F-35A's is expected to enter service in 2023, with FOC expected in 2025 and the Super Hornets fully phased out in the same year.

Australia entered the F-35 program as a Level III partner and invested $150m into the System Design and Development (SDD) phase. This gave us many benefits, including input into the design and development of the aircraft (commensurate with our level of investment sure, but we still got some say in how it was developed).

It also gave us the opportunity to embed Australian Defence Force staff and DSTO engineers, into the F-35 Joint Program Office, giving us full insight into the capabilities of the aircraft and constant access to the full details of development activities.

It also means, that we gain access to the SAME aircraft that USAF will be flying. Our level of stealth and the capability of our sensors, weapons and avionics will be the same as that operated by USAF. We don't get access to source codes, but then no-one ever does. Not legally anyway... It is the same as if you buy a copy of Windows 7. Do you get the source codes with it, or merely a licence to use the software?

Because we invested in SDD, it also means that we avoid paying development costs and FMS costs for the aircraft. If a Country that wants to buy the aircraft, but didn't invest in SDD, they will most likely be subject to paying a premium for it's development costs and also FMS access costs.

So from a cost and capability point of view, not to mention preferential access to airframes from the production line, as well as industry work share and overall insight and input into the program, Australia most definitely does an advantage compared to Countries that did not invest in the SDD phase.

Hope this is what you were after.

Cheers

AD

good post :smokie

 

[Aussie Digger]

we are certainly getting access to critical source code though. the fact that DSTO has an ewarfare system hooked into the CATbird means that we have integrated into substantial parts of the platforms operating and weapons systems suite.

I'd add that we are also involved in the C3I3 space with JSF - that certainly hammers the tinfoil brigades view that we are getting a less capable asset. (as per your reinforcement in all of your other comments)

Do we get to integrate these systems, or does L-M integrate these systems onto F-35 for us? That seems to be the root of the Israeli issues with the F-35...

 

[aussienscale]

Sea Power 2010 Conference Videos

For those of you who are interested here is the link to the above conference, it contains speeches from the CAF regarding RAAF and how they will approach future Amphibious Operations
Conference Videos | RAN Seapower Conference 2010

 

[jack412]

thanks for that,
also a us forces air sea plan for asia pacific region, which is also relevant to the topic
http://defensetech.org/2010/05/18/csba-releases-its-airsea-battle-concept/#more-7150

 

[gf0012-aust]

Do we get to integrate these systems, or does L-M integrate these systems onto F-35 for us? That seems to be the root of the Israeli issues with the F-35...

NFI on the production assets (too early as still in TD stages), but they've certainly been involved with integrating at the CTD level on the CATbird.

The Israelis are still a little on the nose in some US circles, so the issues are slightly different...