Royal Australian Air Force [RAAF] News, Discussions and Updates
The SH buy was an interim solution until the arrival of the F-35. If not the SH, what else should the RAAF have bought?
Yes the RAAF could have bought the F-15 but the whole point of getting the SH was because the RAAF was already a longtime Hornet operator - the existing ground and training infrastructure already in place could be used to support the SH.
Why is it badly designed? It may have been designed from the onset to be carrier operated but it is still more than capable of operating from land bases and all Hornet operators would attest to that.
And the prospect of any of the 4 countries you mentioned coming into conflict with Australia is extremely slim - all have strong trade and military ties with Australia. In Malaysia's case, Australia is on of her main defence partners and she plays host to Australia's only permanent military base abroad.
BTW, the Growlers provide the RAAF with a highly specialised capability that is unmatched in the region.
Last edited:
This platform centric discussion that is less than useful. It is also very un-informed discussion at 3 levels:
one, at a plaform level disussion (you've got to understand the weapons and radar of RAAF's Super Hornet before dismissing the way you have done without due consideration to their logistics, force structure and so on);
two, at a capabilities level discussion (the RAAF is a full spectrum, tertiary air force with unique capabilities that will not be replicated in ASEAN countries - take a look at this old thread on Ex Pitch Black); and
three, from a geo-political and realpolitik level (Australia is a true middle power with extensive economic and defence relations with different countries in ASEAN and this relationship is valued by many of Australia's partners).
two, at a capabilities level discussion (the RAAF is a full spectrum, tertiary air force with unique capabilities that will not be replicated in ASEAN countries - take a look at this old thread on Ex Pitch Black); and
three, from a geo-political and realpolitik level (Australia is a true middle power with extensive economic and defence relations with different countries in ASEAN and this relationship is valued by many of Australia's partners).
You need to read more before posting here otherwise you will not last long in this forum. You have been laughed at by two defence professionals, told by two to three senior members of the forum that your post is factually deficient and told as much by three Mods.
Australia is an external security partner with many ASEAN countries and in some cases they as a middle power, play a crucial facilitative role. And if you don't track the regional relationships, then you are too far away in basics in knowledge for me to be willing to go into greater detail (that you probably can't understand anyway).
Out of kindness, I have given you three broad headings/topics to read, please read up before posting further factually deficient gems in future.
Last edited:
If and when we do get space battleships some day, don't forget to attempt to bill the DoD for your cut of the contract.
Afterall you thought of that idea first...
1. No we couldn't. Silent Eagles don't exist.
2. Sure we could have kept the F-111's flying. For a while. Meanwhile their capability would continue to decline relative to the region whilst we waited for Boeing to spend money on a fighter upgrade no-one has requested or shown any interest in...
Beyond Australian Industry's technical capacity and in no way affordable. On top of which there is this little issue of us not owning the F-111 design. If anyone still owns this design it is most likely Lockheed Martin who purchased the General Dynamics Fort Worth business many many moons ago. For obvious reasons, there may be some issue with arranging for Lockheed Martin to sell us or licence us to build new F-111's...
So there's all these deadly fighters flying around South East Asia that allegedly make the Super Hornet look like an unarmed Cessna in comparison yet we should upgrade a medium bomber aircraft designed to fly on solo flight long ranged penetration missions and one that has NO air combat capability whatsoever, should we?
If these uber-fighters outmatch the Super Hornets so much, what exactly do you think an F-111's chances would be against them?
Nil, that's what. No matter what upgrades you did to them.
Good. Feel stable then because we do have a strong air power. Please feel free to show me another force in South East Asia with a force structure as broad and as capable overall as ours and to discuss why exactly these forces are as broad as ours capability wise...
I would suggest that Singapore is as/more capable as the RAAF in the areas they need to be. G550's, E2, KC135R, F-15SG, F-16C Bk52+ networked with training, doctine and weapons to match. The RSAF has capabilities in some area's greater than ours.
Obviously they dont have as much capability in terms of Air Lift and maritime patrol however given their much smaller geography it could easily be argued that they dont need to have such strong capabilities in these areas.
They're the Venice of the 21st Century at the city state level
One of the things I like about the Sings are the procurement courses they have available for their public servants, they do some very very smart stuff
They developed and adapted some UDT tech we sold to them far faster and smarter than the AustGov - in fact they made it better while AustGov was busy d!cking around and lost the opportunity. In fact they adapted that tech to do what the US was doing. The very thing that we were smug about in beating the US at its own game, they did to us.
Lessons learned on their part, none on our part.
Hence why I mention capability in it's entire context. RSAF is an extremely well-equipped force no doubt about it but where is it's JASSM or JSOW-C equivalent capability? It's capabilities are strong but still deficient in airlift, AEW&C and maritime patrol, meaning ISR capability overall when compared to the RAAF.
At a fighter to fighter levels they stack up very well (but not greater IMHO) but fighter v fighter is a fanboi concept, not an actual warfare concept.
Overall RAAF has the greater capability I'd argue.
The number of transports, MPA's and AEW platforms operated by the RSAF are more than sufficient, given the size of the country and its operational requirements.
There is little doubt that Singapore's procurement systems are far more efficient than Australia's but whose isn't? Also the SAF is very much focused on defending their island state.
In the extremely unlikely event that the RAAF was tasked with taking down their defences, presumably in an alliance with Malaysia and based from there we would have to adopt an attrition based approach. Defending our bases in the northern end of the Malaya Peninsula and launching night by night strikes to degrade their air defences.
With the RSAF having all their Singapore based aircraft and the RAAF deploying everything but the bare bones of force generation this would mean:
10 F-15E, 40 F-16D, 20 F-16C, 40 F-5S/T
vs
20 F/A-18F, 50 F/A-18A
Plus the RMAF who couldn’t really be relied upon for much other than strike decoys, bulking out DCAP and retrograde attrition of RSAF air to air warshots.
With Wedgetail and the significant geographic disadvantage the RSAF faces I think the RAAF could protect Butterworth and degrade the RSAF bases over time. It would take a couple of weeks before we could contest air superiority over Singapore. The RAAF strike missions would be very much decoy heavy and using stand off munitions and air to air ambushes. But the geographic advantage would give a significant initiative advantage to the RAAF/RMAF. Singapore could launch very few sorties without the ops centre at Butterworth knowing about it and even with G550 AEW strike missions with supporting decoys could be positioned against Singapore resulting in multiple vector commitments.
The RSAF has developed a force structure capable of countering their geographic disadvantage against Malaysia and Indonesia even assuming they were near peers in professional competency. But add in another 60-70 high end strike fighters and supporting assets from the RAAF and it would be too much for them. Of course all this is ridiculous, as there is no real political situation which would see Australia against Singapore.
In the extremely unlikely event that the RAAF was tasked with taking down their defences, presumably in an alliance with Malaysia and based from there we would have to adopt an attrition based approach. Defending our bases in the northern end of the Malaya Peninsula and launching night by night strikes to degrade their air defences.
With the RSAF having all their Singapore based aircraft and the RAAF deploying everything but the bare bones of force generation this would mean:
10 F-15E, 40 F-16D, 20 F-16C, 40 F-5S/T
vs
20 F/A-18F, 50 F/A-18A
Plus the RMAF who couldn’t really be relied upon for much other than strike decoys, bulking out DCAP and retrograde attrition of RSAF air to air warshots.
With Wedgetail and the significant geographic disadvantage the RSAF faces I think the RAAF could protect Butterworth and degrade the RSAF bases over time. It would take a couple of weeks before we could contest air superiority over Singapore. The RAAF strike missions would be very much decoy heavy and using stand off munitions and air to air ambushes. But the geographic advantage would give a significant initiative advantage to the RAAF/RMAF. Singapore could launch very few sorties without the ops centre at Butterworth knowing about it and even with G550 AEW strike missions with supporting decoys could be positioned against Singapore resulting in multiple vector commitments.
The RSAF has developed a force structure capable of countering their geographic disadvantage against Malaysia and Indonesia even assuming they were near peers in professional competency. But add in another 60-70 high end strike fighters and supporting assets from the RAAF and it would be too much for them. Of course all this is ridiculous, as there is no real political situation which would see Australia against Singapore.
And the big problem here is that the threats facing ASEAN countries are more likely to come from non-state actors or in other areas where military means may not be the answer - rather than a full scale war amongst ASEAN members.
What is your personal opinion with regards to Butterworth and its continued usefulness to Australia in the near future? Apart from supporting yearly FPDA exercises, as refueling stops for RAAF planes to the Middle East and elsewhere, as a base for P-3 deployments and possibly for SIGINT/ELINT activities on Chinese activity, what other peacetime does Butterworth perform for the RAAF?
Last edited:
I completely agree, my points were simply in relation to the initial request of someone to show me a force more capable than RAAF at an individual service on service level within SEA.
I believe firmly that the RSAF is an extremely well equipped and modern force that is well suited to meeting Singapore's defence requirements.
simplistically, OTHR is a 2 dimensional system, however, the US has made it pretty clear that it wants to have JORN integrated into a broader ballistic management system.
the issue with an OTHR system is that it needs integrating into a 3D system to enable the latter to be enhanced
The forces are more complimentary to each other. Australia however seems to be heading out to a more broad force offering full spectrum capabilities like few others. Upgrading the SH to growlers will further that move and IMO completely justifies the leasing of the SH almost in itself.
JORN is more defensive than offensive. OTHR will pick up something biggish moving from the clutter, but isn't going to be able to offer a targeting solution, it was never designed with that in mind. It a warning system, allowing cuing of assets in response.
The americans would be interested because it works over a large area, over areas where conventional radars are ineffective, its also a great detector being able to detect over mountain ranges while missiles are still in the boosting phase. OTHR cannot be destroyed by a few choice shells or contested airspace so can be effective during a conflict when other systems may be limited. Stealthy coatings and designs are inherentantly less effective with OTHR as you usually get a larger cross section from the angle and of frequencies that are incompatable with the design of the coatings. OTHR systems provide a lot of data, however coupling that massive feed of info with another highly accurate 3D volume based system (or network) provides a system greater than the sum of its parts.
Completely agree with your last sentance.
Do you care to explain as to the significant geographical advantages that would be possessed in the defence of say Butterworth than that of Singapore?
Defence and situational awareness in depth. If the RSAF wants to strike Butterworth they have to fly over 600km of Malaysia or up the straits of Malacca, South China Sea and so on. During this transit there is plenty of opportunity for their strike to be detected. Frankly its almost impossible for Singapore to launch a strike mission without the takeoff being monitored easily from Malaysia.
On the other hand any strike from Butterworth to Singapore only has to worry about AEW detection before they cross the radar horizon (which they can chose to do when and where). Even with AEW like E-2 and G550 around Singapore (they won't be orbiting near KL unless the RSAF wants to lose their AEW) strikes from Butterworth can takeoff undetected and dogleg around to come in on Singapore from a range of directions.
In the extremely unlikely event that such as scenario does occur the Malaysian government is very likely to grant full access to the RAAF using all bases or military facilities available. Though the there are only 3 full fledged military air bases in Peninsular Malaysia, all of which are based up north as historically these were designed to deal with threats posed from Japan in WW2 and later Vietnam, there are a few other commercial airfields or landing strips that will permit jet operations scattered all across the peninsular.
I dont think that its going make that much of a difference. For starters the Sing G550 and E2 would likely have a detection range somewhere in the region of 200NM or thereabouts. Sit them up above Singapore or slightly forward ready to retrograde if required. Secondly this would likely be supplemented with visual observers either in butterworth or more likely just sitting on Penang Island. Its not like you can hide a strike package taking off from Butterworth.