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

[Volkodav]

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.

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.

I could imagine the SH / Growlers filling a variety of non tactical fighter roles well into the future, filling gaps we have had for years. Apart from the obvious, fast FAC comes to mind as does tactical rec.

It would have been interesting to see what the RAAF ended up with had they followed the original schedule. The Mirage F-1 would have been up there while the Phantom is probably what the RAAF wanted, I also remember reading that Australia came very close to ordering 100 Jaguars although imagine they would have been intended as advanced or lead in fighter trainers rather than fighters. I wonder if a new order of fighter each decade would have been sustainable?

 

[Bonza]

From what I understand the Growlers have a hell of a lot of onboard processing power, it'll be interesting to see what roles they might be capable of filling outside of EW. Something about drones comes to mind here, I think it was mentioned by GF some months back, hazy on details though. I'm sure the Supers offer enough utility to be of use for many years, even if they're no longer able to mix it up with frontline fighters. Good networking capabilities and increasing range on standoff munitions gives an obvious but I suppose rather simplistic example.

I've always liked the Mirage series of aircraft but from what I understand, the French could be a bit fickle to deal with in terms of ongoing fleet support, could anyone confirm this? I seem to recall hearing this had something to do with the RAAF not deploying Mirages during Vietnam, but that could be bollocks as I can't even remember where I heard it. Still I know other air forces have had issues of that kind, any further info would be appreciated.

If indeed dealings of that nature were an issue then I'd have much rather stayed away from French aircraft forming the core of Australia's air combat capability. The Phantom was a fantastic aircraft but I don't know enough of the details to know whether they should have been kept in service any longer than they were, though I believe some advocated the idea. Transitioning them over from the strike role to a more air superiority orientated one would have been a possibility I suppose, though it would have necessitated the purchase of the Sparrow missile, if I'm recalling Abe's words to me on another board correctly, we made no purchase of these missiles. It seems that an air combat force of BVR-capable F-4Es along with Mirage IIIs would have been pretty good for the time, although as it happened we may not have needed them.

But I'm typing before I'm thinking here, too hot and too much caffeine for this time of day, excuse any inaccuracies or pie in the sky thinking on this end...

 

[Abraham Gubler]

if I'm recalling Abe's words to me on another board correctly, we made no purchase of these missiles. It seems that an air combat force of BVR-capable F-4Es along with Mirage IIIs would have been pretty good for the time, although as it happened we may not have needed them.

The RAAF had Sparrows (144 AIM-7C to be exact) for the leased F-4Es and fired lots of them as well. It would have been an interesting change for the RAAF to keep the F-4E in place of the F-111. It would have brought about the amalgamation of the strike-recce and tactical fighter groups 30 years earlier. Also it would have been supported by KC-135s to provide the greater mission radius plus likely additional F-4Es and maybe even some RF-4s. The big difference is the adoption of fighter style strike packages for dealing with targets rather than the single intruder in the night style of the F-111.

 

[Volkodav]

The RAAF had Sparrows (144 AIM-7C to be exact) for the leased F-4Es and fired lots of them as well. It would have been an interesting change for the RAAF to keep the F-4E in place of the F-111. It would have brought about the amalgamation of the strike-recce and tactical fighter groups 30 years earlier. Also it would have been supported by KC-135s to provide the greater mission radius plus likely additional F-4Es and maybe even some RF-4s. The big difference is the adoption of fighter style strike packages for dealing with targets rather than the single intruder in the night style of the F-111.

I remember reading a news story in an old Flight Magazine when I was at Uni about Malcolm Frazer (then DefMin) visiting the US in the late 60's to look at the option of buying three sqn of F-4, a half sqn of RF-4 and a half sqn KC-135 to replace the F-111 order should a timely delivery and rectification of issues not be guaranteed.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I remember reading a news story in an old Flight Magazine when I was at Uni about Malcolm Frazer (then DefMin) visiting the US in the late 60's to look at the option of buying three sqn of F-4, a half sqn of RF-4 and a half sqn KC-135 to replace the F-111 order should a timely delivery and rectification of issues not be guaranteed.

I’ve heard mention of the Phantom wing proposal but never seen it in print. The lease deal for the Phantoms did have a buy option and at first seemed very likely to be taken up. The 23 (one crashed) Phantoms would re-equip a Mirage squadron when the F-111s were delivered and allow delay in the acquisition of a replacement (which was delayed eight until 1986 anyway). But the US changed the price for the Phantoms from $2 million apiece to $3 million, which minus the lease cost (as per the lease-buy deal) meant the price to buy went from $12 million to $45 million and so into the bin.

The other big combat aircraft project at this time (~1972) was for a supersonic strike trainer to replace CAC Sabres that were still in use in what we now call the lead in fighter trainer role. In the mid 60s this started as a very neat CAC designed reheat Adour powered delta (CA-31) but the Aus Govt. didn’t want to pay for it.

[ame]http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b336/Bager1968/Aircraft/developmental%20aircraft/CA31004GB.jpg[/ame]

So CAC worked with BAC to design a similar aircraft but now with the then all the rage variable geometry. Then the UK killed this off to buy the much bigger and not so trainer suitable French Breguet Jaguar and the RAAF started to look at buy rather than build. Eventually the cheap option was taken up and that was to use Macchis in the role.

There were lots of other missed opportunities at this time like the 4-6 C-141 Starlifters in the late 60s that by the time Aus Govt. came to sign off on it Lockheed had closed the production line! So civil 707s were purchased in their place and it wasn’t until the C-17 that the RAAF acquired a proper strategic air lift capability. Oh and then the 707 project was delayed 10 years!

There was also the full scope of the 1970 helicopter plan which included 84 Kiowas (Army wanted 100 and in the end got 50), 42 UH-1Hs (in addition to existing aircraft, only 14 were brought), 11 AH-1Gs (none brought) and 12 CH-47Cs. This would have doubled the UH-1H fleet and the Cobras would have been the Bushrangers meaning all Hueys would be slicks. RAAF would have looked a lot better by 1980 if these projects had been realised.

 

[SpudmanWP]

Why not buy the 14 F-35s at Block 3i and have them in country by 2016?

Block 3i gets you:
-- Hardware required for IOC Block 3F
-- Can handle A2A and A2G using internal weapons
-- Frees up at least a dozen of the oldest Classic Hornets so they can be retired and cannibalized to keep the rest of the Classics flying till the 202 timeframe.

 

[colay]

Why not buy the 14 F-35s at Block 3i and have them in country by 2016?

Block 3i gets you:
-- Hardware required for IOC Block 3F
-- Can handle A2A and A2G using internal weapons
-- Frees up at least a dozen of the oldest Classic Hornets so they can be retired and cannibalized to keep the rest of the Classics flying till the 202 timeframe.

AFAIK the USAF have not finalized their IOC target date. It seems unlikely to me that the RAAF could preempt any US decision.

 

[SpudmanWP]

The USMC is going for 2B/3i, and Israel, & Japan are taking their first jets as 3i. The first jets for South Korea would also be 3i, IIRC.

Just because the USAF has not declare a IOC date is no reason for a partner nation or order non OT&E jets before IOC is declared.

 

[Volkodav]

I’ve heard mention of the Phantom wing proposal but never seen it in print. The lease deal for the Phantoms did have a buy option and at first seemed very likely to be taken up. The 23 (one crashed) Phantoms would re-equip a Mirage squadron when the F-111s were delivered and allow delay in the acquisition of a replacement (which was delayed eight until 1986 anyway). But the US changed the price for the Phantoms from $2 million apiece to $3 million, which minus the lease cost (as per the lease-buy deal) meant the price to buy went from $12 million to $45 million and so into the bin.

The other big combat aircraft project at this time (~1972) was for a supersonic strike trainer to replace CAC Sabres that were still in use in what we now call the lead in fighter trainer role. In the mid 60s this started as a very neat CAC designed reheat Adour powered delta (CA-31) but the Aus Govt. didn’t want to pay for it.

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b336/Bager1968/Aircraft/developmental aircraft/CA31004GB.jpg

So CAC worked with BAC to design a similar aircraft but now with the then all the rage variable geometry. Then the UK killed this off to buy the much bigger and not so trainer suitable French Breguet Jaguar and the RAAF started to look at buy rather than build. Eventually the cheap option was taken up and that was to use Macchis in the role.

There were lots of other missed opportunities at this time like the 4-6 C-141 Starlifters in the late 60s that by the time Aus Govt. came to sign off on it Lockheed had closed the production line! So civil 707s were purchased in their place and it wasn’t until the C-17 that the RAAF acquired a proper strategic air lift capability. Oh and then the 707 project was delayed 10 years!

There was also the full scope of the 1970 helicopter plan which included 84 Kiowas (Army wanted 100 and in the end got 50), 42 UH-1Hs (in addition to existing aircraft, only 14 were brought), 11 AH-1Gs (none brought) and 12 CH-47Cs. This would have doubled the UH-1H fleet and the Cobras would have been the Bushrangers meaning all Hueys would be slicks. RAAF would have looked a lot better by 1980 if these projects had been realised.

I remember reading about the Starlifter option, I believe the original idea was it would be a superior medivac platform for wounded from Vietnam. The C-5 was postulated as an alternative but rejected as too large with one comment I read suggesting the the government was concerned that if a single one crashed we could lose an entire battalion, how thats different to a chartered 747 going down I don't know.

The F-4 would have been a good option to replace the Miricle in 76 sqn and eventually see some converted to F-4Gs and some RF-4C or E obtained as well down the track.

I remember reading on the CA-31 as well, it is conceivable that we could have had it as a LIFT, Jaguar replacing the Mirage in the strike role and additional Phantoms taking on the fighter role. Could even work in a Mirage F-1 build if no extra Phantoms were bought.

If I am not mistaken an A number was set aside for the Cobra.

 

[colay]

The USMC is going for 2B/3i, and Israel, & Japan are taking their first jets as 3i. The first jets for South Korea would also be 3i, IIRC.

Just because the USAF has not declare a IOC date is no reason for a partner nation or order non OT&E jets before IOC is declared.

Yeah, I was looking at it from the perspective of risk-averse politicians who could find comfort and justification in procuring a full squadron i.e. the whole concurrency angle.

 

[Bonza]

The RAAF had Sparrows (144 AIM-7C to be exact) for the leased F-4Es and fired lots of them as well. It would have been an interesting change for the RAAF to keep the F-4E in place of the F-111. It would have brought about the amalgamation of the strike-recce and tactical fighter groups 30 years earlier. Also it would have been supported by KC-135s to provide the greater mission radius plus likely additional F-4Es and maybe even some RF-4s. The big difference is the adoption of fighter style strike packages for dealing with targets rather than the single intruder in the night style of the F-111.

Ah right, had my wires crossed from a discussion some time ago, thanks for the correction. On some levels it seems like a missed opportunity not to keep the aircraft, considering their flexibility for their time. How do you think the change from single aircraft strike to strike packages would have worked out for the RAAF? It seems like a more modern idea to me, even if the specific aircraft involved were sort of the other way around.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

How do you think the change from single aircraft strike to strike packages would have worked out for the RAAF? It seems like a more modern idea to me, even if the specific aircraft involved were sort of the other way around.

The F-111 kind of made single intruder operations against defended airspace with precision strike a viable tactic. But it was to be short-lived as the introduction of look down shoot down radars and fast response VSHORADS made them too vulnerable to interception. After these developments you need a stealth aircraft to do it. But packages of strike fighters could fight their way through and above defences to hit the target. For a small two wing force I think both with strike fighters would have been a better investment for the RAAF from the 1970s.

 

[gf0012-aust]

The USMC is going for 2B/3i, and Israel, & Japan are taking their first jets as 3i. The first jets for South Korea would also be 3i, IIRC.

Just because the USAF has not declare a IOC date is no reason for a partner nation or order non OT&E jets before IOC is declared.

Exactly, it's a point lost on quite a few

Every country has a different IOR and IOC, whether it's tied into US timing is a different issue and is based on what that country elects to do on staging the assets out.

also, we have in the past changed the IOR and IOC of different platfoms due to operational reqs - all it needs is for the capability manager, the user and (depending on scale) a high level review to shift it left or right.

we do it all the time

 

[Paddy54]

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

The F35 buy included an element to replace the F111.

Would not the BAE Taranis drone be a far better purchase than the final 24 F35s?

:

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Would not the BAE Taranis drone be a far better purchase than the final 24 F35s?

AIR 6000 was structured so the final batch can be decided at a later date to take into account availability of UCAVs or other platforms. Part of the structure but was to consider for all F-35 detail deliberations that this batch will be more F-35s (to keep things simple). However its 10 years since this plan was written and in that time UCAVs and other platforms just haven’t emerged as was once considered. BAES Taranis is just a demonstrator and it’s hard to imagine the UK coming up with the cash to turn it into a real combat asset in the meantime. 10 years ago the USA had the JUCAS demonstration (X-45, X-47) and neither has progressed to a combat asset since. I’m pretty sure the RAAF will not pursue any UCAV or other platform option for AIR 6000 Phase 2C though wether this goes ahead with F-35s has a lot more to do with the number of Super Hornets in the force at this time. Though the RAAF is still interested in UCAVs it’s more focused on the potentially armed theatre ISR UAV side of the UCAV. If money was made available for a permanent 5 Sqn capability to replace the current Afghan only IAI Heron in 5 Flt then something like a Predator (B/C) would be high on the list.

 

[gf0012-aust]

XC-47's will start conducting deck trials on a CVN this year

UCAV's are in RAAF s future but way out - thats a 2025-2035 consideration

on another note, there is no longer any separation into UAV/UCAV/TUAV anymore, collectively we refer to them as UAS as its a systems development issue, not just a platform selection

edit:

CREF Abes comment on straight winged armed UAS ....

 

[jack412]

It looks like we might be getting a growler 'lite' or have we requested a different system fit?
RAAF Classifies Growlers As Support Aircraft
Australia will not use its Growlers in exactly the same way as the U.S. Navy does, says the senior officer, declining to give details except to note that the RAAF will not fly the same types available to U.S. electronic attack units.

 

[ADMk2]

It looks like we might be getting a growler 'lite' or have we requested a different system fit?
RAAF Classifies Growlers As Support Aircraft
Australia will not use its Growlers in exactly the same way as the U.S. Navy does, says the senior officer, declining to give details except to note that the RAAF will not fly the same types available to U.S. electronic attack units.

We're not getting the 'Growler lite' configuration. We're getting the full package with ALQ-99, HARM-B initially and AARGM down the track and joining NGJ in due course.

What RAAF is doing is trying to justify not considering Growler as part of it's fighter force, rather that it's an ISR asset and shouldn't therefore count as part of it's overall fighter number.

Basically they want four full fighter squadrons + 12 Growlers, which they won't have if they acquire all 12 Growlers and no extra aircraft.

 

[jack412]

yes I got that part and it will be the same pods, but this bit has me stumped "RAAF will not fly the same types available to U.S. electronic attack units."

It seems to indicate we aren't going to run the same growler fit out as the USN and ours will be different in some way

 

[Abraham Gubler]

yes I got that part and it will be the same pods, but this bit has me stumped "RAAF will not fly the same types available to U.S. electronic attack units."

But that's not what was said. Rather it was the RAAF wouldn't use the Growler in the same way the USN will. As ADM has said it will also be an ISR asset, ISR as in intel, surveil and recce, not just as an electronic attack asset.