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

[south]

Still a squadron is going to want a home and any forward deployed assets can just be a DET. Like the Wedgetail which will be homebased at WillyTown with a single (or is it two?) unit(s) at Tindal. I don’t think you would need need to DET C-17As anywhere from their home base but certainly MRTTs would.

Now if we grow the C-17As and MRTTs from five units each to six, eight or 12 the question is how to fit them all at Amberley? Which isn’t going to be really possible with numbers around eight each. As this would mean around 10 heavies on base at any typical point in time. The easy answer would be move the C-17As to Richmond. Especially if it is rebuilt as a joint RAAF civil cargo airfield.



If we start to get six or more MRTTs there could be an argument to DET two (or more) at Tindal. One for 75 SQN and the other(s) for a central, north west Australia fuel stop. MRTTs and C-17As taking off from east coast Oz en route to the MEAO and Europe can be topped up so as to fly direct to destination. I’m sure VIPs en route to London/Paris would dig not having to stop off and you could fly C-17As all the way to Afghanistan or Dubai with full cargo loads. With P-8As and potential IFR capable UAVs in service a top end MRTT can also provide fuel offload for these aircraft during north west coast surveillance missions. Especially if something dramatic is happening and you want to keep eyes on the events.

Essentially agreeing with you. The drama comes with what I saw Stingray suggesting (though I may have interpreted incorrectly) of having airframes scattered around. If the det not supported correctly they can and do go down for significant timeframes if a no go item breaks.... takes the time to get the spare + maintainers flown in, appropriate GSE sourced, dodgy part removed and then refitted with correct part, then after that you still have to get the maintainers home, take broken part back etc...

The other option is to improve the ramp size at amberley... Make it something the size of Travis AFB!!

 

[StingrayOZ]

I can see the value in having the MRTT at tindal. I would have tought that if we had to split the C-17 Richmond would be an obvious choice. Move all the hercs out and further north (eg to Tindal etc). Richmond has been home of the movers so it makes sense. Sydney is not far from Amberly, 1 1/2hr flight, even by road deliveries could be done in less than 12 hrs door to door. Not to mention Boeing is also based in Sydney. Infact I think they have part manufacturing capability in Sydney (not extensive, things like carbon fibre etc).

Then again I don't know if Richmond could handle 12 C-17's all the time.

 

[hauritz]

I read recently that Boeing was pushing the idea of offering a 6th generation alternative to the F-35.

Basically this would be a mix of Superhornets and UCAVs. This is an option the the USN seems to be taking seriously.

The target date for this mix of aircraft to enter fleet service is around 2025.

This could have some interesting implications for Australia.

Could a mix of Superhornets, Rhinos and UCAVs be a good alternative to the F-35?

Could UCAVs be operated off our new flat tops?

Would we be better off simply skipping a generation and pushing straight into sixth generation technology?

Certainly I think that if Australia buys a second batch of F-18s you would have to seriously start questioning the economics of buying the F-35.

There would be little value in buying two aircraft types to fill essentually the same role.

 

[Common man]

common man

I can see the value in having the MRTT at tindal. I would have tought that if we had to split the C-17 Richmond would be an obvious choice. Move all the hercs out and further north (eg to Tindal etc). Richmond has been home of the movers so it makes sense. Sydney is not far from Amberly, 1 1/2hr flight, even by road deliveries could be done in less than 12 hrs door to door. Not to mention Boeing is also based in Sydney. Infact I think they have part manufacturing capability in Sydney (not extensive, things like carbon fibre etc).

Then again I don't know if Richmond could handle 12 C-17's all the time.

Gidday. I'm a newbie here, so tread gently please, I'm a dainty l'il thang.

Regarding the capacity of various facilities to handle increased RAAF capabilities( or all ADF facilities for that matter), it seems to me that the whole box and dice may be about to get a massive increase in funding and capacities due to new policies being taken by both AUS and USA Governments, what with the likelihood of prepositioned US equipment and whatnot, and increased bilateral training etc.
Wouldn't all future capabilities now be somewhat dependant on just what the US plans to station in AUS and where, particularly big ticket items?

 

[ddub321]

Regarding the capacity of various facilities to handle increased RAAF capabilities( or all ADF facilities for that matter), it seems to me that the whole box and dice may be about to get a massive increase in funding and capacities due to new policies being taken by both AUS and USA Governments, what with the likelihood of prepositioned US equipment and whatnot, and increased bilateral training etc.
Wouldn't all future capabilities now be somewhat dependant on just what the US plans to station in AUS and where, particularly big ticket items?

Don't see much of an increase in defence spending on the horizon. Neither of the major parties have made any noise in this direction.... since the govt has already pulled money out of Defence, and the 3% to 2018 commitment has effectively been deferred...

There's definately increased co-operation in the works, which is a good thing... but unless in special cases, i'm thinking this will be done within existing funding...

 

[ADMk2]

I read recently that Boeing was pushing the idea of offering a 6th generation alternative to the F-35.

Basically this would be a mix of Superhornets and UCAVs. This is an option the the USN seems to be taking seriously.

The target date for this mix of aircraft to enter fleet service is around 2025.

This could have some interesting implications for Australia.

Could a mix of Superhornets, Rhinos and UCAVs be a good alternative to the F-35?

Could UCAVs be operated off our new flat tops?

Would we be better off simply skipping a generation and pushing straight into sixth generation technology?

Certainly I think that if Australia buys a second batch of F-18s you would have to seriously start questioning the economics of buying the F-35.

There would be little value in buying two aircraft types to fill essentually the same role.

Is it a waste of time? RAAF is currently operating Hornets and Super Hornets at the same time, oh and Super Hornets ARE Rhinos. That is the USN's nickname for them.

Also what UCAV will be ready to go in 2025? Given we tend to follow the US before acquiring bleeding edge US tech, the product will have to reach IOC in the US several years before we buy it. If we're going to operate it from 2025, that means it will have to reach IOC by 2020 at the latest with a US service.

For our use that includes 3 year production phase for the first platforms. For an entire squadron's worth (minimum IOC level) you're looking at a 4 year production phase plus at least a year's build up training wise, so maybe 4-5 years from the date you place an order for the capability, you'll see some return for your investment.

So the USAF or USN will have to place an order no later than 2015 for this timeline to work out. That leaves less than 4 years from now to develop the capability and get it through IOT&E, unless you're advocating the US to start ordering the aircraft before SDD has finished and then you are looking at the same issues JSF is facing...

So, care to share which UCAV capability is less than 4 years away from completing SDD and IOT&E? The only major US one I can recall offhand is UCAS-D and it hasn't even begun SDD. In fact according to NAVAIR it will only due to complete it's demonstrator milestones in 2013. There is no funding or program in place to actually launch the acquisition program as yet. It's funded to develop technologies only. Not an actual capability and the model chosen for that program is the Northrop Grumman X-47B. Since J-UCAS was cancelled in 2006, Boeing doesn't have an officially announced UCAV contract with any US service, seems a tad hard to understand how they're going to have an operational UCAV capability by 2020...

After that, are you aware USN is planning on replacing it's Super Hornets from 2030, leaving us an orphan user in such a situation?

On top of which, it's a curious argument that the economics of operating the F-35 might be too much for us, but operating 2-3 entirely separate types is apparently entirely economically feasible...

 

[StingrayOZ]

[I would imagine the Ausgov would have huge input where any joint bases are located. Amberly has been supposed to be our superbase, capable of operating every and anything. It would think that would become one of the based that we might share resources with the Americans. Tindal operationally is much closer and Christmas Island offers specific location that no one else can. Christmas Island has been expanded, but with limited ability to ship materials in its a fly in fly out kind of base.
I don’t see what Amberly really offers over Guam. The US said they were going to spend about 16 billion upgrading Guam. And 200 million upgrading Diego Garcia. Tindal might be worth expanding and upgrading, providing another vector north..

 

[hauritz]

The last I read was that the USN planned to keep its superhornets until 2035 and beyond. The USN is also considering buying additional aircraft to cover delays in the F-35 program. I think the SH will be with us for a long time yet. I also think the F-35 will still be in production 20 or even 30 years from now so there really isn't any rush.

The reason that it makes no economic sense to replace the superhornet with the F-35, at least in the short term, is simply that both aircraft perform the same roles. The performance gap between the two aircraft isn't really great enough to justify the expense of the upgrade. The only case that can be made would be from an operational cost viewpoint.

If a second batch of superhornets goes ahead then effectively half the fighter fleet would have already been replaced. It should also be remembered that this would represent an $8 billion investment. That is half the originally planned budget for the F-35 purchase.

If a second batch of superhornets is purchased then that would then leave you with three options ... or perhaps 4.

Option one ... which the defence minister has already endorsed ... is that the Superhornets will be kept and the F-35 order will be cut.

Option two ... which is economic madness in my opinion ... is that our near new superhornets are sold for a pittance and a full fleet of F-35s are purchased.

Option three is that we give up on the F-35 and go all Superhornet ... this is extremely unlikely in my opinion, particularly since we have already committed to buying the first batch of 14, but you never know.

The fourth option of course depends on the availability of the technology and is really just an extension of the third option ... that of course is looking at the F-18E/F purchase as a stepping stone to 6th generation technology.

 

[t68]

I used to go to RAAF Amberley quite regular and still go past a fair bit, there is still a lot a land available to expand the base if they so desired. RAAF Richmond would be too small I think for the Hercules plus 12 C17 plus what the USAF detachment brings in as well I have not been out that way for some time I don’t think it could be expended unless they compulsory acquire property around the fringes but from memory their was vacant land across from the main entrance which might be feasible to put extra runways in but would be expensive, but if an international freight terminal was established might make it worthwhile.

But wasn’t the joint base cooperation agreement about prepositioned USN store’s ships or expanding munitions storage facility, USAF has detachment’s at all major RAAF base’s now, can’t really see them prepositioning combat aircraft full time in Australia.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I used to go to RAAF Amberley quite regular and still go past a fair bit, there is still a lot a land available to expand the base if they so desired.

Not really. The precinct of the base is huge but useable land with access to the runway is limited. The southern end of Amberley is almost wholly dedicated to the aerospace industry with plans for a big expansion down towards the Cunningham Highway (including an inland cargo terminal). The middle has been redeveloped for the Super Hornet and it is the northern end where the new transport aircraft hardstand has gone in. You can’t expand this too far away from the runway because there is a hill and a creek nearby. The eastern end of the runway is all RAAF land (parks for cricket and horses there at the moment) but it’s got very little depth onto the town of Ipswich.

RAAF Richmond would be too small I think for the Hercules plus 12 C17 plus what the USAF detachment brings in as well I have not been out that way for some time I don’t think it could be expended unless they compulsory acquire property around the fringes but from memory their was vacant land across from the main entrance which might be feasible to put extra runways in but would be expensive, but if an international freight terminal was established might make it worthwhile.

I don’t think anyone is planning additional runways at Richmond and they aren’t really needed, even with it becoming a civil cargo terminal. The plans are to build a lot of additional hardstands for civil cargo movements. There is plenty of hardstand space at Richmond at the moment as it was sized for all those Hercs. Any USAF presence in Australia is likely to be around the north end of the country and less likely to involve permanent basing of flying units. More likely to be logistics bases and facilities.

 

[ADMk2]

The last I read was that the USN planned to keep its superhornets until 2035 and beyond. The USN is also considering buying additional aircraft to cover delays in the F-35 program. I think the SH will be with us for a long time yet. I also think the F-35 will still be in production 20 or even 30 years from now so there really isn't any rush.

You seem to think they draw a line in the sand and end the capability on that date. They do not. It's a gradual process as one capability is wound down and the other wound up.

USN is to begin retiring the Shornet from 2030. Seeking to utilise SH as our sole combat capability until 2040 and beyond (which is what NACC has to address) will leave us with an orphan aircraft of dubious capability in outer years of that plan.

The reason that it makes no economic sense to replace the superhornet with the F-35, at least in the short term, is simply that both aircraft perform the same roles. The performance gap between the two aircraft isn't really great enough to justify the expense of the upgrade. The only case that can be made would be from an operational cost viewpoint.

Plain, utterly wrong. The F-35 is a far more capable and survivable platform than the Super Hornet. I guess if you want to make such an ill-informed remark than you could say why don't we retire Super Hornet in favour of the Hawk Mk 127? That'd be pretty cheap. The Hawk's are far cheaper to run then a Super Hornet.

They conduct the same "basic" roles after all so why not? Super Hornet has guns, missiles and bombs. Hawk Mk 127 has guns, missiles and bombs. Therefore they're basically the same aren't they?

If a second batch of superhornets goes ahead then effectively half the fighter fleet would have already been replaced. It should also be remembered that this would represent an $8 billion investment. That is half the originally planned budget for the F-35 purchase.

If a second batch of superhornets is purchased then that would then leave you with three options ... or perhaps 4.

1. A second tranche of Super Hornets has not gone ahead.

2. BACC was funded out of supplementary funding. It has not consumed any of the budget for NACC.

Option one ... which the defence minister has already endorsed ... is that the Superhornets will be kept and the F-35 order will be cut.

Wrong. The Defence Minister has NOT endorsed this option. He's stated it's a possibility IF the F-35's schedule and cost continue to blow out.This was an off the cuff remark during a media interview. It has not been a part of air combat planning released publicly in any major Defence Capability Plan or update released so far. Whether it's a classified "back up" plan or not is neither here nor there as it is not the endorsed plan at the current time.

He has not endorsed ANY change to the current NACC plan.

Option two ... which is economic madness in my opinion ... is that our near new superhornets are sold for a pittance and a full fleet of F-35s are purchased.

You don't know what is planned according to the released strategic planning documents apparently, so how could you possibly know what ADF's intention is in relation to the Super Hornets circa 2023-25?

WHO says we are going to sell them? There has been media scuttlebutt about some arrangement to "sell the airframes" once we've finished with them, but there has not been a Government or ADF decision made about them. That decision is to be made in conjunction with AIR-6000 Phase 2C, which is not expected until at least 2015 as confirmed here:

Top 30 Projects: Defence Materiel Organisation

A subsequent AIR 6000 Phase 2C is planned to acquire the fourth operational squadron to bring the total number of aircraft to around 100. A decision on Phase 2C – not expected before 2015 – will depend on the decision on the timing of the withdrawal of the F/A-18F Super Hornets.

So given the decision isn't even due for another 3 years or so yet, I'd be very interested to know HOW exactly you "know" what is going to happen to the Super Hornets?

Option three is that we give up on the F-35 and go all Superhornet ... this is extremely unlikely in my opinion, particularly since we have already committed to buying the first batch of 14, but you never know.

Very unlikely. Goes completely against ALL of RAAF and ADF's joint planning processes for the last 10 years.

The fourth option of course depends on the availability of the technology and is really just an extension of the third option ... that of course is looking at the F-18E/F purchase as a stepping stone to 6th generation technology.

Hilarious argument. F-35 is uneconomical but the mystical "6th generation" will be easy and quick and cheap and therefore we'd be better off avoiding the "troublesome" 5th Generation...

Give me a break. US is struggling to fund it's 5th Generation capability. There will not BE a 6th Generation, if they can't get their 5th Gen solutions working. You'll see upgraded F-15's and F-16's for the forseeable future... The idea that they'll drop all the investment they've made in F-22 and F-35 for a new pie in the sky capability is the most ludicrous suggestion I've ever heard in my life.

 

[Common man]

I read recently that Boeing was pushing the idea of offering a 6th generation alternative to the F-35.

Basically this would be a mix of Superhornets and UCAVs. This is an option the the USN seems to be taking seriously.

The target date for this mix of aircraft to enter fleet service is around 2025.

This could have some interesting implications for Australia.

Could a mix of Superhornets, Rhinos and UCAVs be a good alternative to the F-35?

Could UCAVs be operated off our new flat tops?

Would we be better off simply skipping a generation and pushing straight into sixth generation technology?

Certainly I think that if Australia buys a second batch of F-18s you would have to seriously start questioning the economics of buying the F-35.

There would be little value in buying two aircraft types to fill essentually the same role.

Are risks increased by relying primarily on the one platform?
By that, I mean mechanical or electrical gremlins, such as the problem with the Raptors that has grounded them for over 4 months, or playing the Devils advocate, deliberately installed gremlins.
I think I'd be a bit more comfortable knowing we had hedged our bets a bit, even if the backup isn't of equal capabilities. Beats throwing Boomerangs.

 

[hauritz]

Are risks increased by relying primarily on the one platform?
By that, I mean mechanical or electrical gremlins, such as the problem with the Raptors that has grounded them for over 4 months, or playing the Devils advocate, deliberately installed gremlins.
I think I'd be a bit more comfortable knowing we had hedged our bets a bit, even if the backup isn't of equal capabilities. Beats throwing Boomerangs.

Actually operating two platforms makes sense for a couple of reasons. While a fleet of shiny new fighters are fine while they are new they pose all sorts of problems when they get old.

It might be better to spread your buys out over 15 to 20 years and avoid the problem of block obsolescence.

Had the RAAF bought a number of C and D models of the hornet then we wouldn't have the problems we have now.

 

[ADMk2]

Are risks increased by relying primarily on the one platform?
By that, I mean mechanical or electrical gremlins, such as the problem with the Raptors that has grounded them for over 4 months, or playing the Devils advocate, deliberately installed gremlins.
I think I'd be a bit more comfortable knowing we had hedged our bets a bit, even if the backup isn't of equal capabilities. Beats throwing Boomerangs.

F-22's aren't grounded, they have lost their authority to fly. There is a significant difference in the two situations. It is a risk management decision the USAF has made because they don't understand fully issues with the on-board OBOGS system on that particular aircraft.

If a major shooting war started tomorrow that authorisation to fly would be re-instated immediately.

If the US are going to install "gremlins" in the F-35, what makes you think they wouldn't install them in Super Hornets too?

Or that Britain or France wouldn't install them in Eurofighters or Rafale if we chose them?

If we're moving into red herring conspiracy theory territory save your arguments for somewhere else please....

We have relied on one platform for the majority of out defence platforms for so many years it's not funny, nor do most consider it a "risk". F/A-18A/B was our ONLY air to air combat fighter prior to the introduction of the Super Hornet. The Miracle was our ONLY air to air fighter prior to the Hornet.

Funny how the "risk" was considered adequate then...

M1A1 is our ONLY tank. The Collins class submarine is our ONLY submarine. The RBS-70 is our only ground based surface to air missile. The Wedgetail is our ONLY AEW&C aircraft. The AP-3C is our ONLY maritime patrol aircraft.

The list goes on and on. Do all these sole platform "risks" mean we should duplicate every capability in service?

 

[StevoJH]

Actually operating two platforms makes sense for a couple of reasons. While a fleet of shiny new fighters are fine while they are new they pose all sorts of problems when they get old.

It might be better to spread your buys out over 15 to 20 years and avoid the problem of block obsolescence.

Had the RAAF bought a number of C and D models of the hornet then we wouldn't have the problems we have now.

What problem is that exactly? And do you believe that C/D Hornets could have adequately replaced the F-111's with the Support assets we had available at the time?

Was there room in the budget for a C/D Hornet Purchase in the mid/late 1990's? Remembering that at this time the F/A-18A's were still "relatively" new in service.

 

[ADMk2]

What problem is that exactly? And do you believe that C/D Hornets could have adequately replaced the F-111's with the Support assets we had available at the time?

Was there room in the budget for a C/D Hornet Purchase in the mid/late 1990's? Remembering that at this time the F/A-18A's were still "relatively" new in service.

Actually for the first time I actually agree with a point he's made. The problem is that a Night-Attack Hornet purchase in the early-mid 90's would have had to come at the expense of the F-111's, which would have caused an uproar at the time. Look at the uproar it caused in the lead up to 2010 when we finally replaced it?

However we could have diverted the F-111 AUP, F-111 / AGM-142 integration and F-111G purchase costs into the C/D Hornet acquisition, freeing up nearly $1b in funding towards their acquisition and given us a capability that actually could have been of some use to us, rather than the White Elephant that was the F-111 for most of it's service in Australia.

 

[hauritz]

What problem is that exactly? And do you believe that C/D Hornets could have adequately replaced the F-111's with the Support assets we had available at the time?

Was there room in the budget for a C/D Hornet Purchase in the mid/late 1990's? Remembering that at this time the F/A-18A's were still "relatively" new in service.

The problem is that we had to buy 24 superhornets that we didn't really want because the F-111 ran out of flying hours ... and we may yet need to buy more.

I don't know if the money was around in the mid to late 90's for the F-111 to be replaced ... although I do remember that option being bandied about ... but what's done is done.

What we should do now is learn from those mistakes and not let it happen again. After all the F-35 will remain in production for a couple of decades. There is no point in rushing into anything.

Its probably a moot argument anyway.

I notice that the Opposition defence spokesman has also waded into the argument saying that he would immediately order 48 more SHs. A stupid thing to say in my opinion ... but a strong indication that the RAAF will not get its full compliment of 100 F-35s regardless of which party is in power.

 

[StingrayOZ]

I dunno, if Rudd gets in I think defence will be well supplied. White papers under him were extremely ambitious. A lot of what he does as FM is dealing with defence issues. While its not definate, with the libs claiming they will buy 48 SH immediately and labors left wing (Gillard) and anti Rudd Right like to kill all defence purchases. Its more favourable with Rudd.

We haven't even got all of our accelerated F-18 purchases. F-35 will most likely start deliveries before any further F-18 batch if we can't jump the que entirely and go to the very next aircraft the USN is having built. Its capability worth waiting for if we can, which at this stage looks like we can.

 

[old faithful]

RAAF Richmond is easily capable of handling C130,s and C17's.
36 and 37 sqns worked out of there for years with 12 C130H,s and 12 C130E,s. They also operated the CC08,s, and hosted USAF,s C141,s and C5,s for extended periods of time.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

RAAF Richmond is easily capable of handling C130,s and C17's.
36 and 37 sqns worked out of there for years with 12 C130H,s and 12 C130E,s. They also operated the CC08,s, and hosted USAF,s C141,s and C5,s for extended periods of time.

Having a look at the Amberley apron (thanks Google) the new work has supplied eight spots for heavies. This new hardstand could be duplicated on either side allowing for 24 heavy spots. It would be awfully crowded as you would have (south to north) the air movements loading area, 82 Wing and then six lines of four heavy spots and then the cleaning bay. It looks like when they put the new cleaning bay in (which has required the road around the runway to have a bump put into it) that the spacing of the new MRTT/C-17 hardstand was designed to be duplicated on either side. So you could base the MRTTs and C-17s at Amberley with up to 12 units each.