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

SASWanabe

Member
if the need is there the aircraft are available,

there are 16 B1 lancers sitting at AMARC looking for a home. \

the Brits are also retiring a bunch of Tornado GR4s, nowhere near the bomber an F-111 is but from what i can tell it can equal the F-111 in range and fulfil the same low level penetration role.

not to mention the 97 B52s sitting at AMARC

they're the only aircraft i can think of that could replace the F-111s

a couple AC-130s are lying around aswel... not much of a tactical bomber tho.
 

t68

Well-Known Member
This was never a project to be cancelled. USAF considered a type of aircraft called the rapid theatre strike with a 1,500 NM radius at Mach 1.5 and then rejected it in favour of a stealthier, longer range bomber type. To support their concept analysis the contractors provided concept designs. Lockheed looked at turning the F-22 into a bomber and Northrop scaled up their F-23 among other concepts. But they were just paper studies.…
I did not realise it was just a paper airplane was under the impression it was futher advanced than that.




Why wouldn’t it be suitable? If we could afford it and it was available it or something like it would be a massive boost to RAAF combat power. In the late 1950s the RAAF was super keen on replacing the 48 Canberras with ~25 Vulcans..…
Agreed, it would be a massive boost to the RAAF but would we really need something of this size and what happened with the Vulcan idea, no money or the gov of the day just would not be in it.



High endurance, low observable ISR and strike: Need? You betcha. Suitable aircraft? Keep watching the skies…
Looking to the sky are you referring to the JSF in a few years?
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
Navy (news Dec 2010) clearly state that Collins has picked up tactical strike (LR) from the F-111.

Any future sub would in all likelihood have a similar requirement.
I read that as Adm Moffat referring to Maritime strike only. Not land based strike.

The Collins is not equipped for long ranged or indeed any land attack mission against moveable or moving targets as I'm sure you well know...

In fact I'm not even certain Harpoon Block II has been integrated onto Collins. The most recent reference material I could find showed that it was still running with encapsulated Block 1C's...
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I read that as Adm Moffat referring to Maritime strike only. Not land based strike.
your'e right. not intentional on my part but was referring to the fact that they're now regarded as our only LR tactical strike - ie without reinforcing maritime strike (kind of self evident I guess)

The Collins is not equipped for long ranged or indeed any land attack mission against moveable or moving targets as I'm sure you well know...
they're missing critical bits in the FCS and combat room to do this..

In fact I'm not even certain Harpoon Block II has been integrated onto Collins. The most recent reference material I could find showed that it was still running with encapsulated Block 1C's...
yep. although "son of" planners are definitely looking at bringing that platform capability into it.
 

AegisFC

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
there are 16 B1 lancers sitting at AMARC looking for a home. \
Those B-1's are parts queens for the rest of the B-1 fleet, while they are proving their worth the Lancers are a logistical nightmare. Back when they were ordered the Reagan administration didn't order enough spare parts when the lines were open, now either a limited run of parts needs to be made or the salvage what they need off decommed aircraft.
 

SASWanabe

Member
Those B-1's are parts queens for the rest of the B-1 fleet, while they are proving their worth the Lancers are a logistical nightmare. Back when they were ordered the Reagan administration didn't order enough spare parts when the lines were open, now either a limited run of parts needs to be made or the salvage what they need off decommed aircraft.
my understanding is that 7 at AMARC are airworthy, and i also believe the 7 on static display around the US are intact and as such repairable. i could be mistaken.

one of the good things about the B-1 is that the USAF plans to keep it till ~2040 so we wouldnt be on our own with spares and such.

i used the B-1 as a "Best Case" still think buying a couple ex RAF tornados would restore most of what we lost with the F-111
 

Abraham Gubler

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
i used the B-1 as a "Best Case" still think buying a couple ex RAF tornados would restore most of what we lost with the F-111
Tornado can’t do dump and burn so we don’t restore anything we have lost. Besides the Tornado’s radius of action is about the same is a Hornet with IFR. Since the RAAF doesn’t have any spare aircrews to fly another old swing wing why the hell would we want them?
 

Bonza

Super Moderator
Staff member
i used the B-1 as a "Best Case" still think buying a couple ex RAF tornados would restore most of what we lost with the F-111
Abe is spot on. We just bought two dozen extremely modern, well supported and highly capable strike fighters, why then purchase second-hand airframes of a type designed in the 60s, the role of which (low level high speed penetration) is a legacy of sensor and engagement limitations that have long since been overcome? It'd be a step backwards.

The Supers have plenty of strike capability, and while their deficiency in range compared to the F-111 looks massive on paper, bear in mind that the F-111 suffered from a lack of survivability in a modern contested environment, which seriously impacted its ability to utilise its range advantage. Fast, low level penetration isn't the safety net it used to be - that's why when you try to think of an F-111 replacement, you come up with old Cold War strikers. There's a reason you don't see modern "heirs" to the F-111, Tornado, Buccaneer etc.

This blog entry explains why the F-111 was retired, and points out the distinction between its capabilities "on paper" and the operational realities of employing the aircraft in the strike role. Whether you agree with it or not I think it'll give you a different perspective, so have a read and see what you think.

Ozzy Blizzard's Australian Defence Times: Four Corners, Flying Blind indeed
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
my understanding is that 7 at AMARC are airworthy, and i also believe the 7 on static display around the US are intact and as such repairable. i could be mistaken.

one of the good things about the B-1 is that the USAF plans to keep it till ~2040 so we wouldnt be on our own with spares and such.

i used the B-1 as a "Best Case" still think buying a couple ex RAF tornados would restore most of what we lost with the F-111
Even a GR-4 Tornado will still have to have a fighter escort. THAT is what the RAAF wanted to move away from. Doesn't matter the range of the platform if it can't go against a hostile nation without assistance from comparatively short ranged fighter escorts, unless you've got enormous AAR capability and if you do, why would you want such a large expensive aircraft that is capable of hauling precisely 2x 2000lbs or standoff weapons to the battle? Hornets and Super Hornets can do that too, might as well save yourself some of the cost of operating such a complex and completely different aircraft, that provides no capability enhancement whatsoever...

That was the biggest problem with APA and their stupid F-22/F-111 combo (apart from the fact that F-22 was never even available).

RAAF would have been operating exactly the same way as it did now only with one clearly more capable platform and one slightly more capable. It did not fundamentally change the way RAAF operates, which is what RAAF mostly wanted to achieve from it's next generation air combat capability.
 

Abraham Gubler

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
A sham compliant deserves a sham inquiry:

Labor's review of Howard's fighters decision a sham

Philip Dorling
February 9, 2011
Labor's review of Howard's fighters decision a sham

THE official review used by federal Labor to justify its commitment to the multibillion-dollar US Joint Strike Fighter project was just a public relations exercise, according to comments by former defence minister Joel Fitzgibbon in secret talks with his American counterpart.

Mr Fitzgibbon candidly told US Defence Secretary Robert Gates in February 2008 that the Air Combat Capability Review of Australia's future air power he had announced a week earlier was driven by domestic politics and was unlikely to produce any result other than acquisition of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, marketed by Lockheed Martin.

According to US embassy cables obtained by WikiLeaks and provided exclusively to The Age, Mr Fitzgibbon made the admissions at a morning coffee session during the annual Australia-US Ministerial Meeting (AUSMIN) in Canberra.

He explained to Mr Gates that the newly elected Labor government would review the former Howard government's decisions to retire the ageing F-111 bomber fleet, pursue the acquisition of Joint Strike Fighters (JSFs) to replace the F-111s and FA-18 fighters, and purchase 24 Super Hornets, as a stopgap until the first F-35s were delivered.

In opposition, Labor had been critical of the Coalition's move to acquire the JSFs and had urged that Australia seek the lifting of a US Congressional export ban in order to acquire the more capable F-22 Raptor, once described by Defence Force chief Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston as ''the most outstanding fighter plane ever built''.

Labor repeatedly warned that likely delays and cost blowouts with the JSFs could compromise capability and Australia could ''end up getting into trouble''.

In January 2008 Mr Fitzgibbon reiterated Labor's intention to ''pursue American politicians for access to the Raptor''.

But the following month, at AUSMIN, Mr Fitzgibbon was quick to assure the US government that such statements had been merely ''political'' and Washington could be confident that the F-35 acquisition would proceed.

The US record of the discussion, approved by Mr Gates, says Mr Fitzgibbon ''expressed his opinion … that the review would likely not result in any decision other than to keep the JSF and continue with the Super Hornet purchase, explaining that the government felt it had to respond to Australian public's concerns that the previous government had not based these decisions on capability requirements but rather on political expediency.

''The Defence Minister stated that 'aircraft acquisition is now a topic of broad public discussion; every man in every hotel (bar) is talking about F-18 Super Hornets,' so the Labor government needs to do a public review,'' the discussion record said.

Mr Fitzgibbon's successor as defence minister, Senator John Faulkner, announced in November 2009 that the government had committed to placing a first order for 14 Joint Strike Fighters at a cost of $3.2 billion, with deliveries to begin in 2014.

The JSF program has since been the subject of development and testing delays, leading Mr Gates last month to express grave concern about skyrocketing costs and announce a big restructure of the program.

During the 2008 AUSMIN meeting, Mr Fitzgibbon sought reassurance that the JSF project was ''on track'', and explained to Mr Gates that Labor's pre-election commitment to pursue the acquisition of the F-22 Raptor would only involve a ''pro forma request''.

''As for the F-22, Minister Fitzgibbon stated he has to ask for political reasons and asked for guidance as to what to do,'' the US embassy reported.

Mr Gates noted that a congressional ban on the export of F-22s was ''unlikely to change anytime soon''.

US Defence Department officials later advised Mr Gates that Mr Fitzgibbon should write to the Pentagon about the F-22 rather than to Congress.

Mr Gates stressed ''the hope that a key decision factor would be for Australia to remain interoperable with the United States, and offered US assistance to the review efforts''. Other US embassy cables highlight Australia's importance as ''a large consumer of US defence hardware and technology'' and identify confirmation of the JSF acquisition as a key objective in the bilateral defence talks.

Immediately after the AUSMIN meeting, Mr Fitzgibbon told a press conference that Australia wanted ''the opportunity to consider the F-22''.

But the US embassy cable makes it clear Mr Gates believed there was little reason to devote much effort to ''a pro forma request regarding possible sale of the F-22 to respond to domestic pressures''.

The report of the Australian review team has not been released. But the May 2009 Defence White Paper foreshadowed the purchase of as many as 100 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters.
 

JWCook

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Originally Posted by JWCook
As I recall the Royal Australian Air force wasn't even aware they required an interim aircraft!!, let alone actively accessing alternatives, its a ministerial decision as far as i can tell with no interference from the experts.


Sorry, thats completely false and has been promulgated in the open press. The interim review was done as par for the course when the risk analysis and risk benefit was established.
Joint Striker Fighter deal sewn up despite 'review' - National News - National - General - The Canberra Times

Regards
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro

Abraham Gubler

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
As I recall the Royal Australian Air force wasn't even aware they required an interim aircraft!!, let alone actively accessing alternatives, its a ministerial decision as far as i can tell with no interference from the experts.
Total fiction. And the Age article doesn't even remotely support this contention either. On the other hand it exposes the political expediacy behind the 'questioning' of the deal.
 

Abraham Gubler

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
The SHornet options were being discussed at Govt level in Mar 2006.
The crisis stage reached by the Air Force leadership was in late 2005 when everyone had to admit that the F-111 wasn’t going to last past 2010, the F-35 wasn’t going to be available in any useable flying hours until >2016 and 64 CBRs was going to ground half the F/A-18A/B fleet in 2010-16. No aircraft equals no air force.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
The crisis stage reached by the Air Force leadership was in late 2005 when everyone had to admit that the F-111 wasn’t going to last past 2010, the F-35 wasn’t going to be available in any useable flying hours until >2016 and 64 CBRs was going to ground half the F/A-18A/B fleet in 2010-16. No aircraft equals no air force.
the first time I heard of a Boeing unsolicited approach was 1st quarter 2006, I'd heard that when I was in the US in Seattle, so it was certainly doing the rounds in the US. That was apparently their 2nd run at the Govt, so they would have had to make their first run 4th quarter 2005.
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
Big deal. We all knew the F-35 was going to be confirmed, Labour had the review because it was a pre-election promise. Well the ones, who believe in reality as opposed to fiction knew it anyway. The fact that the Super Hornet was confirmed after about 2 weeks into the review showed immediately the way it was headed and the failure to release the report, showed that nothing was ever seriously in the running to replace the JSF.

Nor should it have been. It is by far the best choice if we are going to have a single platform Tactical Fighter Force...
 

RubiconNZ

The Wanderer
Ukraine doesn't have any power at all... Don't worry!
Why engage with a troll, and risk action against yourself, there is a reporting function on the forum show some maturity and use it without resorting pointless to retorts. Unless you are trying start a flamer?

Notice how action has been taken by the Mod's already.
 

t68

Well-Known Member
One of the primary functions of the F111 was the photo reconnaissance mission, which I believe 4 where converted into RF111C, and from what I remember PM Hawke refused the American request in the 1st Gulf war as they were seen as too valuable to lose which was a pity, would have put us in the good books with the USAF and defence in general.

General Dynamics RF-111C

Are there any plans of a dedicated F18F Super Hornet into the photo reconnaissance role or is some sort of pod that fits on one of the hard points so any aircraft can to the role; there is ATARS (Advanced Tactical Airborne reconnaissance System) which fits in the front of a f/A18D in place of the gun so you can still carry weapons on the aircraft hard points. The F/A18F also has a nose mounted gun but i have no data if the systems are able to move across to the Super hornet.

ATARS

Also on the earlier the F14 Tomcat used a pod called TARPS (Tactical Airborne Reconnaissance Pod System) which hangs of a weapons pylon. The aircraft which were selected to use only had wiring and instrument changes, but in 1989 they moved to the F/A18D for reconnaissance role but they were still used in GW1.

TARPS (Tactical Airborne Reconnaissance Pod System)

Other options for the RAAF we have been using the Heron UAV (Unmanned Ariel Vehicle) for some time now in Afghanistan with success and we also trialled Global Hawk with the US offers long range capability. I know it’s another expense but would it be worth for Australia to have a dedicated heavy Reconnaissance aircraft like the USAF RC-135 River Joint, it could be seen as an extension to the RAN Collins class Submarine in SIGINT/ELINT gathering, the RAF are acquiring 3 ex USAF KC 135R and converted to River joint standard. Is it a case of too much too soon with MRTT and Wedge tail AWACS, Super hornet and F35A in the future.

UK approves Rivet Joint purchase

http://www.dsca.mil/PressReleases/36-b/2008/UK_08-89.pdf

RIVET JOINT
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
One of the primary functions of the F111 was the photo reconnaissance mission, which I believe 4 where converted into RF111C, and from what I remember PM Hawke refused the American request in the 1st Gulf war as they were seen as too valuable to lose which was a pity, would have put us in the good books with the USAF and defence in general.

General Dynamics RF-111C

Are there any plans of a dedicated F18F Super Hornet into the photo reconnaissance role or is some sort of pod that fits on one of the hard points so any aircraft can to the role; there is ATARS (Advanced Tactical Airborne reconnaissance System) which fits in the front of a f/A18D in place of the gun so you can still carry weapons on the aircraft hard points. The F/A18F also has a nose mounted gun but i have no data if the systems are able to move across to the Super hornet.
RAAF has plenty of recon capability with 37x Litening pods and 18x ATFLIR pods in-service we have a far greater fast jet recon capability than we had with 4x RF-111's and their wet film cameras. The JSF will also massively improve our capability in this respect with EVERY aircraft performing the non-traditional ISR role. Then of course there is the possibility of Super Hornets being modified to the Growler capability, with it's obvious SigInt and Elint capabilities...

RAAF also has the AP-3C and the Wedgetail, both of which have significant SignInt capabilities and clearly strong radar surveillance and in the case of the Orion, strong HD video surveillance systems (Star Safire FLIR HD).

These are both being enhanced or replaced in years to come, with the Orion capability to be replaced with the P-8A and a Global Hawk type capability (not necessarily the GH platform, but something similar).

RAAF won't also, easily give up the Heron capability it has acquired for Afghanistan. I would suggest that a Tier 2 UAV capability will probably become a part of RAAF's future capability, given they will have a good understanding of the benefits of such a capability...
 
Top