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

[aussienscale]

My personal opinion, so anyone more than welcome to tear it apart if they want, but the RAAF have had the upper hand ever since Hawke decided to get rid of the RAN's carrier capability and all but obliterating the FAA. And I can tell you they fight tooth and nail to maintain that position, I actually find it extraordinary that not only did the RAN manage to get the phat ships, but that they got the ski ramp left in the design as well. I know the official face put forward has been that of Tri Service harmony for this new "Purple Assett" but behind the scene's would be a very different story

 

[south]

This sort of fits with something I have been toying with for a while.

If you look at the RAAF it has a lot of top end gear to permit it to meet its required capability, this generally means about 100 capable fighter/strike aircraft, a couple of sqn's for MPA, a couple of sqn's for transport and single sqn's for specialist supporting capabilities. Generally speaking the RAAF has pretty much always been able to maintain both a qualitive and quantitive edge regionally and not too shabby extra regionally either.

Now if you look at the Australian Army and RAN you see a different model, very much on the light scale with limited investment in high end capabilities. I am not suggesting that the personnel aren’t well trained and doing a good job, rather that successive Australian Parliaments haven’t looked after them to the same degree as they have the RAAF. Where are the SPGs the Army has needed since WWII, the armoured brigade a past PM thought we had but didn’t? Where are the RANs helicopter equipped patrol vessels? Why does the surface fleet only have four real warships and even then ships that were originally designed as second tier combatants or Patrol Frigates? Why when we only have about a dozen principle surface combatants are any of them second tier at all?

Basically if the RAAF was equipped in the same manner as the Army and RAN then we would see a high low mix of a single sqn of F-16A’s supported by F-5E’s, half a dozen Orions supported by Fokker F-50 MPA’s, a short sqn of C-130s supported by a mixed bag of ex-QANTAS 727’s and Fokkers. Their new generation would likely be a a single sqn of F/A-18F’s supported by Grippens, upgraded Orions supported by C-295 MPA’s with A400M’s, C-295’s and Beech Kingairs making up the transport side.

Probably because whoever is in power realises that if you dont have air superiority/supremacy your farked...

Also probably because as soon as anything kicks off the RAN and Army will be the first guys screaming for maritime air defence, land strike to take out pesky threat air bases and radars and supply/support facilities, maritime patrol, CAS, Recon, UAV's and transport and then bitching when it doesn't happen because with your force structure when we go to war you have a half squadron of F-16a, 2xHercs and 2xP3's serviceable and available.

The RAN is hardly in a position to bitch and moan anyway, ANZAC ASMD upgrade, AWD's, FFG-UP, Collins, Largs bay or whatever its called now, Canberra class... please tell me which South East Asian nation the current force structure doesnt overmatch, or hasnt overmatched for a fair while, and who the future force structure doesnt overmatch...

The Army, yeah they are the poor cousins... well most parts are anyway

 

[aussienscale]

Also probably because as soon as anything kicks off the RAN and Army will be the first guys screaming for maritime air defence, land strike to take out pesky threat air bases and radars and supply/support facilities, maritime patrol, CAS, Recon, UAV's and transport

Just curious, how far from Australia can the RAAF supply the above services ? or are you just talking from an Australian invasion point of view ?

Cheers

 

[south]

Probably a better question to ask how far from an airbase...

Range is going to depend on a) loadout and b) required endurance... so for fast air varies from 50NM/100km if you want big loadout and long on station time to whatever the hornet radius is for a strike... Obviously longer in all situations with AAR...

Also obviously further/longer for orions/P8's/C-17s/C-130/Wedgetail / Piggies back in the day.

 

[Volkodav]

Probably because whoever is in power realises that if you dont have air superiority/supremacy your farked...

Also probably because as soon as anything kicks off the RAN and Army will be the first guys screaming for maritime air defence, land strike to take out pesky air bases and radars and supply facilities, maritime patrol, CAS, Recon, UAV's and transport and then bitching when it doesn't happen because with your force structure when we go to war you have a half squadron of F-16a, 2xHercs and 2xP3's serviceable.

The RAN is hardly in a position to bitch and moan anyway, ANZAC ASMD upgrade, AWD's, FFG-UP, Collins, Largs bay or whatever its called now, Canberra class... Tell me who regionally the current force structure doesnt overmatch, or hasnt overmatched for a fair while, and who the future force structure doesnt overmatch...

The Army, yeah they are the poor cousins...

Well actually I was thinking the RAAF have it right and the other services would be much better off if they pushed for similar force mixes. That said I was told by a lecturer (an ex RN MEO on SSBNs, so expect some bias) that in the UK in particular but also in Australia the RAF (RAAF) being the new service was terrified of being strangled at birth so countered this through cultivating and mentoring their best an brightest in staff work, perfecting the ability to get the message across to politicians and the public that they were indispensible. In following decades this led to the ability to win many a turf war that the other services simply failed to communicate the necessity to the powers that be.

Seriously I can see the need for a capable and if possible homogenous air combat force and wonder if 100 aircraft in four squadrons is enough. At the same time every time I see an ANZAC or (to a lesser extent) an FFG I feel like crying, it really is the equivalent of a single squadron of F-16A and a couple of squadrons of F-5Es, if that. The RAAF would never be so equipped so why is the RAN?

On the good news side of things Project Beersheba is moving the Army in a more homogenous direction with identical line Infantry Battalions supported by specialist units to maximise their capability in any assigned mission. Just too bad the government didn’t get the idea behind the SPGs.

I was not and am not having a dig at the RAAF (well except for in a tongue in cheek way), rather trying to point out just how stupid the RAAF would look if they were equipped in the same hodge podge manner of the army and navy. Would Seasprite, MRH90 or Tiger have happened if run by the RAAF?

(disclaimer: I do not think the RAAF should control all aviation but am suggesting the other services should take a leaf out of their book.)

 

[Raven22]

Also probably because as soon as anything kicks off the RAN and Army will be the first guys screaming for maritime air defence, land strike to take out pesky threat air bases and radars and supply/support facilities, maritime patrol, CAS, Recon, UAV's and transport and then bitching when it doesn't happen because with your force structure when we go to war you have a half squadron of F-16a, 2xHercs and 2xP3's serviceable and available.

I think the point being made, especially by General Leahy, is that the pointy end of the RAAF hasn't been used recently, and is unlikely to be used, whereas other parts of the ADF that do get used every day are underfunded. For instance, the RAAF just randomly had $1.5 billion spent on a requirement that didn't even exist at the same time as the Army had the SPG cancelled and large numbers of AFVs mothballed. This is the same Army that's borne the overwhelmingly large burden of ops since 1999.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I think the point being made, especially by General Leahy, is that the pointy end of the RAAF hasn't been used recently, and is unlikely to be used, whereas other parts of the ADF that do get used every day are underfunded.

And the Army has to bear a cost burden for indulging political and regional whims like APIN. But it’s up to the Army to sell these things. Under Leahy the then PM was convinced the Army needed to be expanded and have a proper allotment of funded combat systems. Since then what has Army leadership achieved? Abolished the beret…

 

[Abraham Gubler]

(disclaimer: I do not think the RAAF should control all aviation but am suggesting the other services should take a leaf out of their book.)

The RAAF has its history of terribly managed procurements. Just they were a generation ago and they learned from the experience oor had the opportunity to cause major damage taken away from them via the peace of deserts. Project Wamira literally destroyed the Australian aircraft building industry. Nothing in the past 10-20 years has managed that.

 

[Volkodav]

The RAAF has its history of terribly managed procurements. Just they were a generation ago and they learned from the experience oor had the opportunity to cause major damage taken away from them via the peace of deserts. Project Wamira literally destroyed the Australian aircraft building industry. Nothing in the past 10-20 years has managed that.

They were apparently looking to call "Wamira", "Wombat" until the guided weapons team pointed out that it was an acronym for Waste Of Money Brains And Talent. It had been suggested tongue in cheek but the PM (or whoever) didn't get the joke.

Agreed the RAAF has had its share of clangers, they are just much better at selling their needs than the others. For instance look at recent times the RAN desperately wanted the US built Flight III Burke instead of the F-100, could you imagine the government going for a local build of Typhoon/Rafael/Gripen over the F-35?

The RAN could/should have swung a 4th Adams to replace Voyager, maybe even arranged a license build of three to replace Vampire and Vendetta as well. This would have provided breathing space for DDL and Protector permitting the AOE to be built first, maybe also a helo carrier or two and a class of 6 or more DDLs to follow through from the mid 80s instead of the later FFGs and ANZACs to be followed by our own take on an AEGIS frigate / destroyer. I am getting way off track for the RAAF thread though.

Then again maybe the RAn should follow the RAAFs example and kill off the local industry so the CoA has no choice but to buy from the US.

 

[Raven22]

And the Army has to bear a cost burden for indulging political and regional whims like APIN. But it’s up to the Army to sell these things. Under Leahy the then PM was convinced the Army needed to be expanded and have a proper allotment of funded combat systems. Since then what has Army leadership achieved? Abolished the beret…

I think it helps if you have a government that's actually willing to spend money for something with a gun on it. The recent string of purchases shows the current government isn't too keen on things that go bang. The Choules, that other stupid amphib ship, more C-17s, C-27s, Growlers etc - all handy to have, but hardly the sort of thing to scare the neighbours with.

And as I said before, Abbott promised me personally that he would bring back the beret. He won my vote right there.

 

[gf0012-aust]

And I can tell you they fight tooth and nail to maintain that position, I actually find it extraordinary that not only did the RAN manage to get the phat ships, but that they got the ski ramp left in the design as well. I know the official face put forward has been that of Tri Service harmony for this new "Purple Assett" but behind the scene's would be a very different story

The phat ships are a legacy of Cosgrove (he was an enthusiastic proponent and made the case for them) and the Govts infatuation and respect for him - he stayed above the political quagmire

I'd add that phat ships were universally and enthusiastically embraced by army (vigorously) and by airforce.

it was a true joint service decision andd actively promoted by all three - it certainly helped that Cosgrove was the chief and was able to influence after ET.

what you saw up front was how they played behind - one of the few times in the early years of purple ...

In actual fact - the phat ships were driven by Army in the early days

 

[hauritz]

What amuses me about whitepapers is how they always seem to reflect the views of the government of the day. If a government doesn't like what they are reading they will just commission another one.

No doubt if there is a change of government next year there will be a new whitepaper in 2014 or 2015 that will just happen to endorse the defence policies already foreshadowed by the current opposition.

 

[Milne Bay]

What amuses me about whitepapers is how they always seem to reflect the views of the government of the day. If a government doesn't like what they are reading they will just commission another one.

No doubt if there is a change of government next year there will be a new whitepaper in 2014 or 2015 that will just happen to endorse the defence policies already foreshadowed by the current opposition.

If you don't want to spend any money - commission a paper.
If you want to try to figure out a defence policy because you have just got into gov't and don't have any policy - commission a paper.
If you want to slam the previous government for whatever reason while not spending any money - commission a paper.
If you want to defer paying for decisions already taken - commission a paper.
If you are incapable of making decisions - commission a paper.
If you can't think of anything else to do - commission a paper.
Then - after the paper is delivered - ignore whatever does not suit your political agenda or will give jobs to opposition held seats.

Rant off!

 

[Hoffy]

If you don't want to spend any money - commission a paper.
If you want to try to figure out a defence policy because you have just got into gov't and don't have any policy - commission a paper.
If you want to slam the previous government for whatever reason while not spending any money - commission a paper.
If you want to defer paying for decisions already taken - commission a paper.
If you are incapable of making decisions - commission a paper.
If you can't think of anything else to do - commission a paper.
Then - after the paper is delivered - ignore whatever does not suit your political agenda or will give jobs to opposition held seats.

Rant off!

Mate , that is very funny - and so true.
Just look at some of the recommendations made in the last white paper.
What on earth happened to the extra $100bn in spending etc?
One thing that a totalitarian dictatorship doesn't have to worry about is too much mucking around every 3 or 4 years with different defence strategies.
Not that we should wish for that of course but it goes to show what democracies are up against in some parts of Asia Pacific.

 

[aussienscale]

The phat ships are a legacy of Cosgrove (he was an enthusiastic proponent and made the case for them) and the Govts infatuation and respect for him - he stayed above the political quagmire

I'd add that phat ships were universally and enthusiastically embraced by army (vigorously) and by airforce.

it was a true joint service decision andd actively promoted by all three - it certainly helped that Cosgrove was the chief and was able to influence after ET.

what you saw up front was how they played behind - one of the few times in the early years of purple ...

In actual fact - the phat ships were driven by Army in the early days

Definately agree, and why wouldnt the Army advocate for them, its a great capability for them, and a great extender.

I still believe the RAAF would have a big say in it, to maintain what they have, they have been fighting very hard for what they have since the end of RAN carriers and to this day say they can cover anything a carrier can, which we all know is rubbish

So they have a vested interest, I know it has been some time since I worked at Russell, but I still find it hard to believe all this "Lovey Dovey" between the services and that everyone's favourite colour is purple ? That is from what I know, a massive cultural change in the political posturing of the services, and that is something that takes more than one generation to achieve, and a lot more effort than Howard and Gillard have ever put into Defence

Just my opinion based on what I had seen and worked with up to the mid 90's, and I just can't see that much change when you look at and see all the other inherent issues that have plagued Defence for some time ?

 

[gf0012-aust]

Just my opinion based on what I had seen and worked with up to the mid 90's, and I just can't see that much change when you look at and see all the other inherent issues that have plagued Defence for some time ?

Mate, there are meetings where tribalism still rears its head

It doesn't matter what the 3 stars say if they're being judiciously ignored behind closed doors by LTCOL and other svce equiv below....

I'd argue that we don't have the same tribal probs that the US has though.... they can be fiercely tribal - although they all form up when its against State.

 

[Air Force Brat]

Mate, there are meetings where tribalism still rears its head

It doesn't matter what the 3 stars say if they're being judiciously ignored behind closed doors by LTCOL and other svce equiv below....

I'd argue that we don't have the same tribal probs that the US has though.... they can be fiercely tribal - although they all form up when its against State.

You've definetly nailed the tribal thing in the US, and we have the opposite issue, the USAF seems to have gone all touchy feely and does't have the "tough old birds" on the joint chiefs, and the outgoing Chief of Staff, Gen Norton, stated that they just didn't have the "Political Capital to save the F-22", although he goes on to state they really wanted to. The Navy has been able to maintain their 11 carriers and battle groups, in addition to our light carriers of a similar number, and the Army, well they do a little better than the USAF, but the tribalism has definetly handicapped our capabilities. Now add to that 500 billion in defense cuts coming 2 Jan. 2013, in addition to the cuts that have already been in the same neighborhood of 500 billion? It will be a bloodbath

 

[fretburner]

^ But isn't just the nature of the Australian requirements vs the US? I don't see the RAN sending a battle group anywhere while the US makes it a point that they always have a CBG very close to the "hot spots". As I see it -- and based on what I read here -- Australia's focus is to make sure nobody just suddenly lands somewhere in the Northern Territory... and if they did, would be able to push them back. Which is why having F-35s makes a lot of sense and the RAAF will get the lion's share. I don't see Australia send an invasion force somewhere. Meanwhile, the US, in my opinion, think that they can already get air superiority where they want to be with what they currently have.

 

[t68]

^ But isn't just the nature of the Australian requirements vs the US? I don't see the RAN sending a battle group anywhere while the US makes it a point that they always have a CBG very close to the "hot spots". As I see it -- and based on what I read here -- Australia's focus is to make sure nobody just suddenly lands somewhere in the Northern Territory... and if they did, would be able to push them back. Which is why having F-35s makes a lot of sense and the RAAF will get the lion's share. I don't see Australia send an invasion force somewhere. Meanwhile, the US, in my opinion, think that they can already get air superiority where they want to be with what they currently have.

Correct Australia won’t send a standalone invasion force but will contribute to a coalition event, but the ADF can take the lead in a peacekeeping force as we have seen in the past. We were very lucky in that one the Indonesians did not take it a step to far.

Like all nations defence force, defending the homeland is its primary role. But in Australia's case the threat of a traditional invasion is very low to non-existent, but that don’t mean we should stick our head in the sand either in regards to the overall balance of the ADF.it should have the capacity to respond to events from armed peacekeeping to medium level combat across the entire spectrum Air, Land or Sea.

 

[STURM]

Apologies for getting off-topic. At the time of delivery, were RAAF Super Hornets fitted with a missile approach warning system and a laser warning system?