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

[Abraham Gubler]

In relation to the F-35, what will become of No 6 Squadron when they are introduced? As 6th Squadron has always been our "trainer/bomber" squadron for whatever bomber/strike aircraft we have had, be it canberras, f-111s and now super hornets. With our strike aircraft now (or will anyway) becoming the same as our regularly fighters, will the squadron be disbanded as No. 2 Operational Conversion Unit can now do all the training seeing as there is only one combat aircraft to train with?

The initial pre Super Hornet plan was for 6 Sqn to be the F-35 OCU. 6 Sqn is now going to be the Super Hornet OCU. The Super Hornet plan was to see 1 Sqn trained in the US to an operational level and then 6 Sqn trained as an OCU to sustain training for the Super Hornet over its life of type.

There is no signed off by Govt. plan to go to an all F-35 fleet. The AIR 6000 construct has always kept the final squadron (Phase 2C) separate from the first three squadrons. While more F-35s has been a strong option for this last batch, and the AIR 6000 team instructed to act as if it was going to be F-35s, the Government has kept this open. At first this was to see if there was anything new they could buy like a UCAV but now this phase is a Super Hornet replacement. So with the Super Hornets being able to fly until 2025-30 without any need for major work or replacement this phase is wide open to a range of possibilities.

So in short it is too early to say with certainty what will happen to the future of 82 Wing and 6 Sqn's role. It could become redundant

 

[Volkodav]

The initial pre Super Hornet plan was for 6 Sqn to be the F-35 OCU. 6 Sqn is now going to be the Super Hornet OCU. The Super Hornet plan was to see 1 Sqn trained in the US to an operational level and then 6 Sqn trained as an OCU to sustain training for the Super Hornet over its life of type.

There is no signed off by Govt. plan to go to an all F-35 fleet. The AIR 6000 construct has always kept the final squadron (Phase 2C) separate from the first three squadrons. While more F-35s has been a strong option for this last batch, and the AIR 6000 team instructed to act as if it was going to be F-35s, the Government has kept this open. At first this was to see if there was anything new they could buy like a UCAV but now this phase is a Super Hornet replacement. So with the Super Hornets being able to fly until 2025-30 without any need for major work or replacement this phase is wide open to a range of possibilities.

So in short it is too early to say with certainty what will happen to the future of 82 Wing and 6 Sqn's role. It could become redundant

Interesting, so we could see a later model, perhaps two seat or optionally manned F-35, a UCAS development, the USNs SH replacement or perhaps even the USAFs New Generation Bomber?

This will be fun to watch as we are likely to see a couple of changes in government and therefore requirements before a decission is made.

 

[John Newman]

The initial pre Super Hornet plan was for 6 Sqn to be the F-35 OCU. 6 Sqn is now going to be the Super Hornet OCU. The Super Hornet plan was to see 1 Sqn trained in the US to an operational level and then 6 Sqn trained as an OCU to sustain training for the Super Hornet over its life of type.

There is no signed off by Govt. plan to go to an all F-35 fleet. The AIR 6000 construct has always kept the final squadron (Phase 2C) separate from the first three squadrons. While more F-35s has been a strong option for this last batch, and the AIR 6000 team instructed to act as if it was going to be F-35s, the Government has kept this open. At first this was to see if there was anything new they could buy like a UCAV but now this phase is a Super Hornet replacement. So with the Super Hornets being able to fly until 2025-30 without any need for major work or replacement this phase is wide open to a range of possibilities.

So in short it is too early to say with certainty what will happen to the future of 82 Wing and 6 Sqn's role. It could become redundant

All of what you have said certainly makes sense about the current and future make up of the various Sqn's and Wings.

If somewhere down the track the RAAF does get all 100 F35's, then it would be logical for there to be four operational sqn's,(1, 3, 75 and 77sqns supported by a larger 2OCU as the training and support Sqn). Then the only probable chance of 6sqn surviving would come down to, if the Government of the day, decided to keep and convert the "pre-wired" F/A18F's into the E/A18 Growler role.

A questioned that I have wondered, if and when the RAAF does eventually have a single aircraft type, for example the F35A, will "all" the Sqn's have exactly the same role? Or will the Sqn's be trained and tasked with "separate" primary roles, eg, Strike/Recon role (currently 1 and 6Sqn) and Tactical Fighter roles (3, 75 and 77Sqn)?

Is it better to have two distinct primary focus for the various Sqn's? Or is it better, more practical, that all the Sqn's be multi skilled and multi tasked in what 81 and 82 wing currently do separately??

 

[wormhole]

One can expect the F-35 to have a robust EW capability at some point so perhaps Growlers will be shortlived in RAAF sevice or perhaps limited to a stand-off role? One wouldn't expect a non-stealthy Growler to escort a strike package of VLO f-35s to target.

 

[Bonza]

One can expect the F-35 to have a robust EW capability at some point so perhaps Growlers will be shortlived in RAAF sevice or perhaps limited to a stand-off role? One wouldn't expect a non-stealthy Growler to escort a strike package of VLO f-35s to target.

The 2-man crew of the Growler makes a big difference in the dedicated EW role at this point, because as far as I know the Growler's got some serious grunt to its systems that necessitates a second crew member if it is to be used most effectively.

I expect that, LO or not, the utility of a dedicated EW asset like the Growler will remain relevant well into the service life of the F-35. I could be wrong on this as I don't have a great understanding of the EW mission, but I think the benefits of an EW platform in the context of the wider air force are substantial regardless of whether the front-line fighter is an LO platform or otherwise.

In terms of its processing power I'm curious to see if the Growler, in combination with UAV systems, could provide the basis for a Wild Weasel capability if the RAAF felt the need for such (this is just pure conjecture on my behalf though)...

So that's my two cents worth, others here would be able to give you a more accurate or informed answer I'm sure.

 

[aussienscale]

The 2-man crew of the Growler makes a big difference in the dedicated EW role at this point, because as far as I know the Growler's got some serious grunt to its systems that necessitates a second crew member if it is to be used most effectively.

I expect that, LO or not, the utility of a dedicated EW asset like the Growler will remain relevant well into the service life of the F-35. I could be wrong on this as I don't have a great understanding of the EW mission, but I think the benefits of an EW platform in the context of the wider air force are substantial regardless of whether the front-line fighter is an LO platform or otherwise.

In terms of its processing power I'm curious to see if the Growler, in combination with UAV systems, could provide the basis for a Wild Weasel capability if the RAAF felt the need for such (this is just pure conjecture on my behalf though)...

So that's my two cents worth, others here would be able to give you a more accurate or informed answer I'm sure.

I think an EW Missioned F-35 will be fully developed in the lead up to Growlers getting too old, some early work has alread been done on the F35 with EW Pods having been developed, which was IIRC in conjunction with talks of the 2 manned version, further developement at this stage is not required as the Growler platform has plenty of years left in it yet, but the base work has been done

 

[gf0012-aust]

One can expect the F-35 to have a robust EW capability at some point so perhaps Growlers will be shortlived in RAAF sevice or perhaps limited to a stand-off role? One wouldn't expect a non-stealthy Growler to escort a strike package of VLO f-35s to target.

Strike package scenarios include assets such as Growlers escorting F-22's
Prior to the F-22, Prowlers participated in sanitising he space for the F-117's

Future package scenarios also inlclude USN Growlers assisting VLO into the battlespace

Although Growlers aren't VLO, they have a significant capability to assist in sanitising the track space for VLO/LO assets.

they won't be having a limited future

 

[John Newman]

One can expect the F-35 to have a robust EW capability at some point so perhaps Growlers will be shortlived in RAAF sevice or perhaps limited to a stand-off role? One wouldn't expect a non-stealthy Growler to escort a strike package of VLO f-35s to target.

Sorry, but I think I'd have to disagree with what you say about the Growler being "shortlived" if it ever came into RAAF service.

Yes an F35 with its ASEA radar is certainly going to have a better EW capability, compared to current 4th gen aircraft, probably similar or more cable than an F/A18F with its ASEA radar, but its still NOT a dedicated Electronic Warfare aircraft with all the various EW pods that an E/A18G would carry

The US is going to be operating the Gowler well into the service life of their various F35 versions and I'm sure they will be "escorting" strike packages of F35's for many years to come when both are in service.

 

[Bonza]

I think an EW Missioned F-35 will be fully developed in the lead up to Growlers getting too old, some early work has alread been done on the F35 with EW Pods having been developed, which was IIRC in conjunction with talks of the 2 manned version, further developement at this stage is not required as the Growler platform has plenty of years left in it yet, but the base work has been done

Good to know, thanks for the information. I would have thought the mission would go to a UAV platform by the time the Growlers are getting old, but interesting to know there's been some work done on the F-35.

 

[Kirkzzy]

The initial pre Super Hornet plan was for 6 Sqn to be the F-35 OCU. 6 Sqn is now going to be the Super Hornet OCU. The Super Hornet plan was to see 1 Sqn trained in the US to an operational level and then 6 Sqn trained as an OCU to sustain training for the Super Hornet over its life of type.

There is no signed off by Govt. plan to go to an all F-35 fleet. The AIR 6000 construct has always kept the final squadron (Phase 2C) separate from the first three squadrons. While more F-35s has been a strong option for this last batch, and the AIR 6000 team instructed to act as if it was going to be F-35s, the Government has kept this open. At first this was to see if there was anything new they could buy like a UCAV but now this phase is a Super Hornet replacement. So with the Super Hornets being able to fly until 2025-30 without any need for major work or replacement this phase is wide open to a range of possibilities.

So in short it is too early to say with certainty what will happen to the future of 82 Wing and 6 Sqn's role. It could become redundant

I think sticking with the F-35s to replace the Shornets would be the best option. Having one airframe saves money on training and costs. And the F-35 is a true multi-role fighter in that it will fulfill the Shornet, hornet and F-111's mission in a single airframe. And it would be nice if we had (big ask) 5 squadrons as it allows for one air defence (3 squadron), one strike (1 squadron) and three left over which will be able to be available when needed and with ease.

 

[StevoJH]

I think sticking with the F-35s to replace the Shornets would be the best option. Having one airframe saves money on training and costs. And the F-35 is a true multi-role fighter in that it will fulfill the Shornet, hornet and F-111's mission in a single airframe. And it would be nice if we had (big ask) 5 squadrons as it allows for one air defence (3 squadron), one strike (1 squadron) and three left over which will be able to be available when needed and with ease.

If its decided that an EW platform is required, then I believe that the RAAF will be better off keeping the F-18F's for their full service lives or until a UAV platform is available rather then replacing them with an F-35 which is likely to be less capable at EW.

I have reservations about the usage of UAV's in a high intensity theatre though, unless they can be made at least semi-autonomous. No point having unmanned EW assets in theatre if there is a risk that an enemy can neutralise them by jamming the datalinks.

 

[wormhole]

I guess it will depend on what capabilities the actual NGJ will have when it gets built and who knows how long that will take. But in the meantime the Growler is the best alternative out there.

Will F-35 Customers Get Advanced Jammer? | AVIATION WEEK

Will F-35 Customers Get Advanced Jammer?

Aug 12, 2010



By David A. Fulghum
NAS Patuxent River, Md.



The U.S. Navy is providing some details about what the Next Generation Jammer might add to the air defense-busting capabilities of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, but the unique and futuristic capabilities of the jammer raise questions about how many of those yet-to-be-defined abilities will be available to foreign purchasers of the JSF.

The Navy and the Office of the Secretary of Defense have not made any decisions regarding the release of Next Generation Jammer technology, although the NGJ is expected to be vital to the strike aircraft’s survival in heavily defended enemy airspace (see p. 48).

Defending U.S. strike-fighters against sophisticated, high-altitude, surface-to-air missiles continues to be the core mission for the NGJ, says Navy Capt. John Green, program manager for Airborne Electronic Attack and the EA-6B Prowler.

 

[Kirkzzy]

I have reservations about the usage of UAV's in a high intensity theatre though, unless they can be made at least semi-autonomous. No point having unmanned EW assets in theatre if there is a risk that an enemy can neutralise them by jamming the datalinks.

UAVs are only going to get more and more advanced. I wouldn't be surprised if 6th or more likely 7th generation air superiority fighters were highly manoeuvrable UCAVs with an advanced cockpit a couple thousand KMs away. You never know.

 

[aussienscale]

Good to know, thanks for the information. I would have thought the mission would go to a UAV platform by the time the Growlers are getting old, but interesting to know there's been some work done on the F-35.

Agree, more than likely that UAV platforms will be well enough developed to take this task by that time, but nice to know they have a potential back up plan

 

[StingrayOZ]

It will be interesting with only 12 Growlers is it worth keeping them? Or will we keep all the SH (training and strike)?
It does give us options. Will we get 75 or 100 F-35’s (or a number in between?) I would imagine our absolute maximum is 100 F-35 and 24 SH with 12 being growlers. I suppose our reasonable minimum is 75 F-35A’s and return all the SH. While we can return the SH I can’t really see of a situation where it would be hugely beneficial to do so given once acquired the ADF tends to keep things until they are utterly shagged, and then some more. I can’t really see where returning some and keeping some would be that advantageous to us.
It’s not a bad leasing deal we struck with the US, in the end I think we will keep them, but it gave us ultimate flexibility during uncertain times and a very capable aircraft almost instantly. The US keeps us in the F-35 program (and I’m pretty sure we are ordering at least 75) but we might be more flexible in our slots depending on who needs them and where we get pushed to.
I would imagine we would keep the SH until they are ready to be replaced, at which point the game would have changed and the F-35 won’t be the bees knees anymore.
100 F-35A, 12 SH and 12 Growlers seems like an extremely capable force, certainly on of the most modern and broad spectrum capable in the region. Most other allies will have some LO, some old and some new aircraft.

Curious can a SH buddy refuel a F-35A?

 

[John Newman]

Curious can a SH buddy refuel a F-35A?

No, the F35A requires a "boom" equipped aircraft to refuel it, same refueling method of all the USAF aircraft, with the refueling receptical mounted on the top of fuselage behind the canopy.

The B and C models (Marines and US Navy) will have the the same "probe" setup as the Super Hornets, so they could refuel them.

 

[ADMk2]

No, the F35A requires a "boom" equipped aircraft to refuel it, same refueling method of all the USAF aircraft, with the refueling receptical mounted on the top of fuselage behind the canopy.

The B and C models (Marines and US Navy) will have the the same "probe" setup as the Super Hornets, so they could refuel them.

There is space and weight reserved in the -A model airframe and they are plumbed to allow for a probe to be fitted to -A model F-35A's for hose and drogue refuelling, if a customer requested (and paid for) this capability.

Contrary to opinions stated by certain self declared (group) think-tanks around the place the F-35 airframe has growth margins available within it's airframe. The refuelling option is one good example of this.

 

[John Newman]

There is space and weight reserved in the -A model airframe and they are plumbed to allow for a probe to be fitted to -A model F-35A's for hose and drogue refuelling, if a customer requested (and paid for) this capability.

Contrary to opinions stated by certain self declared (group) think-tanks around the place the F-35 airframe has growth margins available within it's airframe. The refuelling option is one good example of this.

What you have said is no doubt true, that a refuelling probe "could be fitted" to an A model, as in the B and C models, but I seriously doubt that the RAAF would want to change our eventual fleet of A's to a hybrid and add more development expense and times delays.

The other point to doing such a modification, and correct me if im wrong, is that the place where the internally mounted gun on the A's is placed, is the place and space where the B's and C's have their probe fitted.

From what I understand, the B's and C's do not have an internal gun, but instead have an external gun "pod".

 

[ADMk2]

What you have said is no doubt true, that a refuelling probe "could be fitted" to an A model, as in the B and C models, but I seriously doubt that the RAAF would want to change our eventual fleet of A's to a hybrid and add more development expense and times delays.

It remains to be seen, RAAF haven't really announced what configuration their F-35A's will have exactly, but as they have boom equiped refuellers, I wasn't really referring to them but Countries more along the lnes of Israel, Canada etc which only have hose and drogue only refuelling capabilities.

The other point to doing such a modification, and correct me if im wrong, is that the place where the internally mounted gun on the A's is placed, is the place and space where the B's and C's have their probe fitted.

From what I understand, the B's and C's do not have an internal gun, but instead have an external gun "pod".

You're right the -A's have an internal gun and the B&C have the external gun pod, however the internal gun and the refuelling probe are on opposite sides of the airframe.

Here's the internal gun on F-35A:

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/f35/f35-internal-gun.jpg

Here's the refuelling probe on B&C:

ImageShack® - Online Photo and Video Hosting

 

[StingrayOZ]

Does this mean the RAAF can't refuel the Super Hornets using existing assets other than another Super Hornet?