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

[King Wally]

Thats a bloody good article. In fact a quality current affairs program would be ahead of the game to cover an angle like that as a deliberate contrast to 4 corners.

I particularly like the battleship analogy, it really sums up the debate I feel.

 

[Vivendi]

The US navy, which if it stood alone would be about the fourth biggest air force in the world, will start retiring its Super Hornets in 2025, but it will keep some in service until the 2030s. The US air force and marines will go solely to JSFs.

Will the USN really retire all their SH in their 2030s?

IAn air force, by say 2035 or 2040, of 48 Super Hornets and 50 JSFs would be vastly inferior to an air force of 100 JSFs. As well, it would be more expensive to have two separate training and maintenance operations and to integrate two radically different planes into single-mission capabilities.

Has people looked into how "vastly inferior" a mix of SH and JSF will be? It will probably be inferior, but I am not so sure it will be "vastly inferior" if used well. I guess it depends on the scenarios one needs to deal with.

Anyway its' not correct that the USAF will go with only the F-35; it will also have the F-22 More relevant though: it will keep the F-15 around for quite some time I believe.

Russia, China, India, Japan will all keep a mix of 4. gen and 5. gen for many decades to come. India is in the process of buying 126 Rafale, and they have a much tougher security situation than most F-35 partners. Russia is building the SU-35 right now.

Also, if the F-35 becomes much more expensive than the SH then going for a mixed fleet may not be much more expensive even in the long term?

 

[the road runner]

Also, if the F-35 becomes much more expensive than the SH then going for a mixed fleet may not be much more expensive even in the long term?

We will loose capability by having 2 training doctrines for both aircraft.ie 2 training Squadrons.We loose capability right there.We would have only 1 training squadron if we choose JSF.

The def pros have also stated JSF will fit into the force construct we are trying to achieve.Australia dosent have a big population like China or India who can afford to have 40 squadrons.

I for one hope these boofheads in Government stick with the JSF plan.Everyone in defence who has access to the Top Secret info swear by JSF. I would argue they know their job and are making the right choice when it comes to JSF

 

[hauritz]

One way of looking at it is to consider that the F-35 will remain in production for a long time so it is quite possible that the SH would be replaced by additional F-35s anyway.

You could see the F-35 replace the classic hornets in the early 2020s and then an additional batch of F-35s will replace the super hornets during the 3030s.

The pressure will always be there for commonality. When the F-35 comes down in price and the by then aging superhornets come due for a mid life refit you might yet see the 100 strong F-35 fleet.

 

[Milne Bay]

The def pros have also stated JSF will fit into the force construct we are trying to achieve.Australia dosent have a big population like China or India who can afford to have 40 squadrons.

Interestingly, the RAAF was at its peak during WW2. From a population of around 7 million, the RAAF had, in August 1944, around 182000 personnel.
There was a drawdown from then until the end of WW2 when it finished with 75 flying squadrons.
Desperate times mean desperate measures of course, but in the event of major hostilities again, 40 squadrons for the RAAF would be quite small I believe.

 

[the road runner]

Desperate times mean desperate measures of course, but in the event of major hostilities again, 40 squadrons for the RAAF would be quite small I believe.

I would assume wages play a big part ,$50,000(plus) per Airman and ground staff the numbers become mind boggling.Add to that 400 aircraft plus would cost us $50-100 million per aircraft times 400(plus)and you start to realise we would bankrupt the country.

Countries like India and China would have an advantage in lower wages compared to us. I would assume they would pay a similar price for Aircraft tho

 

[Milne Bay]

I would assume wages play a big part ,$50,000(plus) per Airman and ground staff the numbers become mind boggling.Add to that 400 aircraft plus would cost us $50-100 million per aircraft times 400(plus)and you start to realise we would bankrupt the country.

Countries like India and China would have an advantage in lower wages compared to us. I would assume they would pay a similar price for Aircraft tho

Not too many countries come out of a major conflict with a credit balance.
Australia supported not only the RAAF at the sizes stated but also a large standing army and a considerable navy during WW2.
The country wasn't bankrupted.
The point I was trying to make was that we only tend to look at things with our current frames of reference. Everything changes when circumstances demand that they do including raising finance to support a conflict. Wages stay the same or go down, taxes go up, borrowings increase etc.
Of course in peacetime things are always going to be different/smaller etc.
Just saying ......

 

[michael jordan]

If you don't have an account with The Australian, google this: For security's sake, Joint Strike Fighter is way of the future. That is the articles title. the Australian certainly makes it difficult to get at their articles.

Yes its true that Australians will not make it easy to get their articles.

 

[King Wally]

Interestingly, the RAAF was at its peak during WW2. From a population of around 7 million, the RAAF had, in August 1944, around 182000 personnel.
There was a drawdown from then until the end of WW2 when it finished with 75 flying squadrons.
Desperate times mean desperate measures of course, but in the event of major hostilities again, 40 squadrons for the RAAF would be quite small I believe.

I can't help but asume someone somewhere will reach for the big red nuke button and "settle the issue" before things ever got to that stage of desperation again.

 

[michael jordan]

I can't help but asume someone somewhere will reach for the big red nuke button and "settle the issue" before things ever got to that stage of desperation again.

I would assume wages play a big part ,$50,000(plus) per Airman and ground staff the numbers become mind boggling.Add to that 400 aircraft plus would cost us $50-100 million per aircraft times 400(plus)and you start to realise we would bankrupt the country.

Countries like India and China would have an advantage in lower wages compared to us. I would assume they would pay a similar price for Aircraft tho

RAF squadrons in 2012 is approximate 12 aircraft, thus we can guess that by 2015 the RAF will be havinng a number of 40+ and that may increase to 50+ in 2020 basing up on my research. But Milne Bay is right that 40 squadrons will be a small amount.

 

[the road runner]

RAF squadrons in 2012 is approximate 12 aircraft, thus we can guess that by 2015 the RAF will be havinng a number of 40+ and that may increase to 50+ in 2020 basing up on my research. But Milne Bay is right that 40 squadrons will be a small amount.

This is a RAAF (Royal Australian Air Force) thread and not a RAF(Royal Air Force) thread.

1 Squadron in the RAAF is approx 12 planes for our fast jet fleet. The RAAF would never have 40 fast jet Squadrons (480 planes) .Not with this government or in this financial climate.But one can hope haha

Welcome to the forum

 

[t68]

This is a RAAF (Royal Australian Air Force) thread and not a RAF(Royal Air Force) thread.

1 Squadron in the RAAF is approx 12 planes for our fast jet fleet. The RAAF would never have 40 fast jet Squadrons (480 planes) .Not with this government or in this financial climate.But one can hope haha

Welcome to the forum

With the difference between aircraft of the 1940 to today's high tech aircraft unless we start now we will never get to that level again,
If push came to shove and the logistics behind the parts of the F35 from around the globe i don't think the US could build aircraft as quick as before under a national emergency policy

 

[Milne Bay]

With the difference between aircraft of the 1940 to today's high tech aircraft unless we start now we will never get to that level again,
If push came to shove and the logistics behind the parts of the F35 from around the globe i don't think the US could build aircraft as quick as before under a national emergency policy

True enough.
I wonder if that is the F-35's achilles heel.

 

[Vivendi]

The government is considering another 24 Super Hornets with a view to getting some JSFs some time in the future, and eventually running a mixed fleet. But given the length of time we keep planes in service - 40 years for the F-111s - and the dire state of the defence budget, it would probably be many years, 2025 at the absolute earliest, before we ever got any JSFs.

In the long run, this would leave us with an inferior air force and higher costs. An air force, by say 2035 or 2040, of 48 Super Hornets and 50 JSFs would be vastly inferior to an air force of 100 JSFs. .

A couple of things:

1. It says above "eventually running a mixed fleet". But this is not something new, is it?

It is my understanding that RAAF has been running a mixed fleet for a long time; Hornets and F111. Now they are still running a mixed fleet: SH and Hornets. In the near future they will run a mixed fleet no matter what decisions they make.

Let's say they don't buy any more SH. Will they phase out all the Hornets and then start phasing in F-35? If they do, they will end up with a tiny fleet of only 24 SH.

Or will they start phasing out Hornet and phase in F-35 at the same time? If they do, they will during the transition period operate 3 different types of aircraft! If the transition period is very long, that could be very painful.

The other thing: Above it compares 48 SH and 50 F-35 to 100 F-35. However I strongly doubt that is a valid comparison. I don't know what a valid comparison would look like, perhaps something along the line of "48 SH and 50 F-35" to "75 F-35"...?

The F-35 is a after all becoming quite expensive. If you in addition take into account all the costs of operating F-35, SH and the old Hornets for a long transition period, I doubt you will ever see 100 F-35 in the RAAF... unless you find oil of course

 

[jack412]

Vivendi, that was a copy paste of the hard to access article, but I agree mostly with what you are saying. It's a wait and see what will happen, I saw this speculated on another site.

RAAF fighter squadrons nominally have 18x jets assigned to them. 6 Squadron is the exception to this rule at present, having only 6x jets on-board.

If the Super Hornet purchase goes ahead, the Super Hornet squadrons will most likely have a nominal strength of 16x jets per squadron with 1, 6 and probably 75 Squadron taking on the Supers and Growlers.

6 Squadron are pegged to run all the Growlers. It isn't clear yet (because no decision has been made) as to whether the 12x Growlers in the DSCA request will replace the conversion of the pre-wired F/A-18F's, but it is certain we won't be running 24x Growlers.

If the decision goes ahead it's likely that 1 and 75 Squadron at Tindal will run 16x F/A-18F's a piece and 6 squadron will run 4x F/A-18F's and 12x EA-18G to provide an OCU capability and EW capability for RAAF.

In practice the jets are allocated to squadrons as needed, as they're only parked 100 metres away from each other at Amberley, but that will be the nominal allocation again, if it goes ahead.

The F/A-18A/B's will then consolidate at Williamstown with a reduced fleet maintained from the best of the remaining Hornets (in FLEI terms) until they can be replaced by F-35 in years to come.

 

[hairyman]

I dont understand why everyone is worried about a mixed fleet of two aircraft types. When was the last time that the RAAF operated only one aircraft type? And is'nt it safer to operate several types over one, in case some software or other problem occurs that grounds the fleet of a particular aircraft type?

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I dont understand why everyone is worried about a mixed fleet of two aircraft types. When was the last time that the RAAF operated only one aircraft type? And isn’t it safer to operate several types over one, in case some software or other problem occurs that grounds the fleet of a particular aircraft type?

In the past the RAAF has operated two classes of combat aircraft (as opposed to types): tactical fighters and strike-recce aircraft. Each class had their own training and career stream. Which was more than reasonable for such different aircraft as the Canberra bomber and Mirage fighter. Then around 10 years ago both streams were combined and all became fighters.

With the replacement of the F-111 with the Super Hornet the RAAF almost has a single type of aircraft. The need for operational conversion from a Hornet to a Super Hornet is very small and much of the 6 Squadron demand in this role is training the ACOs. Whereas previously 6 Sqn with F-111s did a course for pilots very similar to what 2 OCU did.

Of course if there was only a single aircraft type you wouldn’t need any difference in conversion training between the two wings at all. Plus you would only have a single maintenance system. All these means the RAAF can do more with the resources allocated to them to operate combat aircraft. The threat of aircraft grounding is a minor one and certainly not worth the extra cost for a country with no present or foreseeable air threat to the homeland.

 

[King Wally]

I have to agree the single fleet carrot at the end of the stick some people chase isn't as clear cut as it may seam.

With the 24 Supers picked up in 2010 and the intention to upgrade 12 to Growlers in the future there is at least a moderate window into the future where a mixed fleet is guaranteed to some extent. In for a penny in for a pound you could say. Doesn't matter if its 24 or 48 theres going to be 2 schools of training there for a while regardless.

There is however a point further into the future, perhaps around 2030 where we could make moves to set up a real single fleet, by that stage the F-35 will be very mature and tried and tested. I guess the fact is that we can keep that future point closer if we reject the proposed additional 24 Super Hornet buy, it certainly wont have an imediate impact on the fleet mix but in 20 years time we will notice. That's the dificulty of making decisions right now as you have to live with them for a very long time.

If I remember correct Government held off deciding the replacement for the old mirages a number of years beyond the ideal transition date in order to pick up the then brand new Classic Hornets (which at the start of the 80's were amung a group of emerging new fighter designs). In many ways we are at a similar point now where we may be required to wait just a little longer to get the best long term buy in the F-35 to secure us into the long term.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I have to agree the single fleet carrot at the end of the stick some people chase isn't as clear cut as it may seam.

In all honesty that’s your problem not the RAAFs.

With the 24 Supers picked up in 2010 and the intention to upgrade 12 to Growlers in the future there is at least a moderate window into the future where a mixed fleet is guaranteed to some extent. In for a penny in for a pound you could say. Doesn't matter if its 24 or 48 theres going to be 2 schools of training there for a while regardless.

Even before the Super Hornet buy the RAAF had plans for a Growler capability to be acquired by 2030 to counter advances in GBAD capability. It is a different kettle of fish to have an additional single squadron flying an electronic attack platform in addition to the two wing air combat force with a single strike fighter.

There is however a point further into the future, perhaps around 2030 where we could make moves to set up a real single fleet, by that stage the F-35 will be very mature and tried and tested.

The F-35 will be mature and tested in 2020.

If I remember correct Government held off deciding the replacement for the old mirages a number of years beyond the ideal transition date in order to pick up the then brand new Classic Hornets (which at the start of the 80's were amung a group of emerging new fighter designs). In many ways we are at a similar point now where we may be required to wait just a little longer to get the best long term buy in the F-35 to secure us into the long term.

No that’s not remotely true. In the late 1960s the Govt. abandoned plans to buy a new fighter and upgraded the Mirage to last until 1980. In the late 1970s the Govt. put off plans to replace the Mirage by 1980 and upgraded it again so it could last until the late 1980s. There was never any project shuffle to hold off until the F/A-18 was available. It was just like the 2002 decision to wait until the F-35 was ready all about saving money.

 

[the road runner]

Taken from Canada's next jet fighter thread....

the mantra is not about whether we buy JSF, its about how many we buy over what period of time. all the test vignettes and combat scenarios show that JSF is a golden mile ahead of anything else available in that capability matrix

Shornet/Growler is no substitute for JSF, but if it gives a 10 year window of maintaining a capability, then its a viable solution

Canada is in the same position - and with that we shouldn't continue to hijack the canadian thread.... /grin

With Abes comment of having JSF ready by 2020 approx. and a number of articles i have read about the state of our F-18 classics ,it seems that we are on the border ,with half thinking our classics can make the 2020 date and the other half thinking they can not.

Would we have been in a better position in sticking to the original JSF plan and buying 2(ordered already) + 14 JSF before the ranga changed that plan? OR was the A version of JSF still to risky to purchase the extra 14?I ask because i would assume the 14 could of been used to train the RAAF pilots ,while also having an upgrade further out to the 2020+ date.

I wonder if our new mates Spain would lease us a squadron or 2 of their F-18,but then again they would be shagged like ours?