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

[John Newman]

It isn't the end of the world but to write this off as a non issue is totally wrong. The extra weight makes a difference in agility end of story (not to mention range and fuel cost). No aircrew in their right mind would fly the second batch F/A-18F into battle if they could fly first batch aircraft.

However 10 years from now the most likely fate of these aircraft is to be rolled through a Growler upgrade. Lets just hope that somewhere in the Growler package is some money for some XM11S so the RAAF can actually train against a GBAD threat. Should have been brought 15 years ago but later is better then never.

Abe,

I'm very interested in your comments, and I respect the fact you are a senior member of this forum and a defence professional who knows and will know far more about these matters than I ever will.

But how does 100kgs of extra weight, presumably spread around the Super Hornets airframe turn it into something that is sigificantly 'less than' compared to a standard Super Hornet as you have suggested?

Has this part conversion created some sort of major deficiency in the airframe structure?

Interested in why this is so.

 

[ADMk2]

It isn't the end of the world but to write this off as a non issue is totally wrong. The extra weight makes a difference in agility end of story (not to mention range and fuel cost). No aircrew in their right mind would fly the second batch F/A-18F into battle if they could fly first batch aircraft.

However 10 years from now the most likely fate of these aircraft is to be rolled through a Growler upgrade. Lets just hope that somewhere in the Growler package is some money for some XM11S so the RAAF can actually train against a GBAD threat. Should have been brought 15 years ago but later is better then never.

I think JP 3021 Phase 1 is intended to acquire a mobile EW Threat Emitter System and YOD was scheduled to be next year, so we should see some activity on that front soonish...

 

[jack412]

Osley and Jones statement for the Department of Defence annual report 2011-12

ParlInfo - Parliamentary Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade : 16/05/2013 : Department of Defence annual report 2011-12

Well worth the read

 

[ADMk2]

Osley and Jones statement for the Department of Defence annual report 2011-12

ParlInfo - Parliamentary Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade : 16/05/2013 : Department of Defence annual report 2011-12

Well worth the read

Jensen is hilarious. Defence have tried time and time again, to get him to understand that these ridiculous scenarios APA have dreamed up are just fanciful. He still wants to imagine the F-35 as having every possible disadvantage, give the J-20, PAK-FA, SU-35 every possible advantage and then p*ss and moan that the F-35 doesn't meet what we "need".

To believe their cr*p all you have to believe is:

1. J-20's, PAK-FA's and SU-35's, supercruise ALL the time AND F-35's never EVER fly supersonic. Anywhere. The Sino-Russian fighters have no engine or fuel limits on how much they can fly supersonically and this extreme performance doesn't affect negatively these aircraft's availability, airframe fatigue life, cost or supportability.

2. J-20's, PAK-FA's and SU-35's ALWAYS fly above 50,00 feet and F-35's never EVER fly above 40,000 feet. The newer fighters can even fly about 60,000 feet, the pilots don't require P suits and they have no issues with maneuverability at such high altitudes.

3. J-20's, PAK-FA's and SU-35's ALWAYS carry a minimum of 8 Beyond Visual Range air to air weapons (just like the F-22 according to Dr Jensen...) and an undefined number of IR guided weapons. They do this of course WHILST supercruising and whilst above 50,000 feet, even those aircraft that don't feature internal weapons bays. F-35's will NEVER carry more than 2 AMRAAM's into combat.


4. J-20's, PAK-FA's and SU-35's fly this fast everywhere, this high everywhere carrying this many weapons everywhere, yet for some reason still have unbelievably amazing range and they have no maneuver limits on their aircraft despite these high speeds, high altitudes and large payloads. The F-35 has no range, even when carrying virtually no payload, at subsonic cruise speeds and medium altitudes. It also has massive maneuver limits at any condition.

I honestly don't know what's in this guy's head. He is clearly just a fruitcake...

 

[Abraham Gubler]

But how does 100kgs of extra weight, presumably spread around the Super Hornets airframe turn it into something that is sigificantly 'less than' compared to a standard Super Hornet as you have suggested?

Aircraft performance in speed and agility is a product of its weight (and other things). Add extra weight without extra lift and thrust or less drag and you have less speed and agility than before. Usually that extra weight provides some sort of beneficial capability except in the case of wiring for something that isn’t fitted. The additional weight is enough to cut range by 2% so likely to have a similar level of effect on agility. Since fighters tend to operate close to the edge with margins of under 5% a 2% difference is quite significant.

 

[Stezza]

Hi everyone, long time lurker here.

Now that it is likely (certain?) that the RAAF will have a mixed fleet of super hornets/growlers and F35, what types of upgrades will be done to the supers to make the most of the F35 technology?

I have been following the F35 and AMRAAM threads and have learnt a lot about the importance of communication/networking between multiple platforms, sensors and weapons.

 

[ADMk2]

Hi everyone, long time lurker here.

Now that it is likely (certain?) that the RAAF will have a mixed fleet of super hornets/growlers and F35, what types of upgrades will be done to the supers to make the most of the F35 technology?

I have been following the F35 and AMRAAM threads and have learnt a lot about the importance of communication/networking between multiple platforms, sensors and weapons.

I think you've hit the nail on the head there. Any Super Hornet upgrades will most likely be in the form of improved weapons, communications and data-links, electronic warfare systems and perhaps sensor improvements. Some upgrades have already been announced, including:

ADF has already announced it's intention to acquire new air to air weapons for the JSF and Super Hornet in years to come.

RAAF has already announced it's intention to acquire the Laser JDAM capability for the Hornet, Super Hornet and JSF.

They have announced an intention to acquire the improved AGM-154 JSOW C1 to equip the Super Hornet and the JSF.

They have announced an intention to acquire a new maritime strike weapon system to equip JSF and potentially the Super Hornet in years to come.

They have also announced an intention to acquire the Small Diameter Bomb 2 for the JSF and potentially the Super Hornet in years to come.

I suspect that as the Super Hornet moves through it's RAAF career, it will follow standard-wise the USN for commonality and capability benefits. I envisage at some point an MLU (mid-life update) will be undertaken and I suspect we'll see radar, ATFLIR targetting pod, combat avionics systems (sensor fusion, distributed targetting etc) Electronic Warfare and data-link upgrades as a priority for the Super Hornet.

RAAF has also announced an intention to acquire a AGM-88B HARM and an AGM-88E AARGM missile capability to support the EA-18G Growler in-service. It would not surprise me if those weapons were to be integrated on the Super Hornet fleet as well.

 

[John Newman]

I think you've hit the nail on the head there. Any Super Hornet upgrades will most likely be in the form of improved weapons, communications and data-links, electronic warfare systems and perhaps sensor improvements. Some upgrades have already been announced, including:

ADF has already announced it's intention to acquire new air to air weapons for the JSF and Super Hornet in years to come.

RAAF has already announced it's intention to acquire the Laser JDAM capability for the Hornet, Super Hornet and JSF.

They have announced an intention to acquire the improved AGM-154 JSOW C1 to equip the Super Hornet and the JSF.

They have announced an intention to acquire a new maritime strike weapon system to equip JSF and potentially the Super Hornet in years to come.

They have also announced an intention to acquire the Small Diameter Bomb 2 for the JSF and potentially the Super Hornet in years to come.

I suspect that as the Super Hornet moves through it's RAAF career, it will follow standard-wise the USN for commonality and capability benefits. I envisage at some point an MLU (mid-life update) will be undertaken and I suspect we'll see radar, ATFLIR targetting pod, combat avionics systems (sensor fusion, distributed targetting etc) Electronic Warfare and data-link upgrades as a priority for the Super Hornet.

RAAF has also announced an intention to acquire a AGM-88B HARM and an AGM-88E AARGM missile capability to support the EA-18G Growler in-service. It would not surprise me if those weapons were to be integrated on the Super Hornet fleet as well.

I think you are spot on about your assessment of the path the Super Hornets will follow through their service lives, it makes a lot of sense to 'piggy back' onto the USN path for the Shornets for a whole lot of reasons.

I remember reading at the time on the introduction of the Shornets, that the RAAF was very conscious of following the USN configuration for those aircraft to ensure there was a smooth and trouble free entry into service, especially at that time when they were intended to operate for approx only 10 years.

And in weapon fit too, whilst the Classics were armed with ASRAAM and JASSM, the Shornets are cleared to carry AIM9X and JSOW and also different targeting pods too, they wanted to avoid having to integrate weapons that the USN didn't use, despite the fact that ASRAAM and JASSM already being in service with the Classic fleet.

But I do wonder, now that the Shornets will be in service for double the original time, eg, at least 20 years, which is approx 10 years operating side by side with the F35, if there will be any deviation from the weapons carried compared to the USN Shornet fleet?

There appears to be commonality between the F35A and the Shornets in weapons fit in that both will carry AIM9X, AMRAAM, JSOW and the J series bombs.

In regard to JASSM, as I understand it the F35A will be able to carry it, externally not internally, will the RAAF integrate JASSM onto the Shornets when the Classics retire despite the fact the USN doesn't use JASSM?

The other area of difference is Anti-Ship weapons, the common weapon initially will be JSOW, the Shornets carry Harpoon, but I haven't read anywhere if the F35 will be armed with Harpoon, if it was it would probably be external.

Then there is the possibility of the Norwegian JSM being acquired for the F35, which will fit internally too, if it is, will it be fitted to the Shornets even if the USN doesn't use it?

And there is also LRASM-A, based on the JASSM, if this is considered for the F35A as an external long range Anti-Ship missile, would it also be fitted to the Shornets too?

To me, these questions highlight one of the other problems for the RAAF in having to operate a 'mixed' fleet of fast jets for a long period of time, compared to the desire to have one common platform and also a common set of weapons too.

 

[ADMk2]

There's no guarantee RAAF will maintain weapons compatability with USN. They "may" but they could easily choose Meteor as it's future BVR weapon instead of AMRAAM and JSM as the anti-ship missile as examples of this.

I'd suggest the Super Hornets will be kept at a similar configuration for the basic aircraft, with USN birds, but weapons-wise things may change now that these aircraft are "permanent".

 

[SpudmanWP]

Boeing & the USN "may" eventually get around to installing UAI in the Super Hornet fleet considering that the F-15E has it and teh F-16 will get it in the M6+ updates.

This will open up the weapons quite a bit.

 

[John Newman]

There's no guarantee RAAF will maintain weapons compatability with USN. They "may" but they could easily choose Meteor as it's future BVR weapon instead of AMRAAM and JSM as the anti-ship missile as examples of this.

I'd suggest the Super Hornets will be kept at a similar configuration for the basic aircraft, with USN birds, but weapons-wise things may change now that these aircraft are "permanent".

I agree that there is no guarantee that the RAAF will follow the USN in its weapons selection, obviously with the broad range of weapons that the various partner nations will wish to see integrated into the F35, then the options will certainly be there for the F35A's in RAAF service.

My question is more around the Super Hornets, if the RAAF chooses certain weapons that are cleared and available for use on the F35 that are not used by the USN on their Super Hornets will we go to the expense and trouble of also integrating them on the Super Hornets or will we see a situation where the RAAF has two distinct types of weapons for the two different airframes?

Yes of course the RAAF has done this in the past by integrating weapons onto the F111C's and the Classic Hornets that their parent operators didn't, but will they do it again with the Super Hornets if a different weapons path is chosen for the F35A's?

As I mentioned earlier, this appears, to me at least, to be another hurdle to overcome in having to operate two different aircraft types, two different training, spares and support systems, etc, and possibly two different types of similar weapons for the F35A and the Super Hornets.

 

[MickB]

I have read many times that the only replacement for the Caribou is a Caribou.
I was recently reading that Viking Air has aquired the rights to many DHC aircraft and has reopened the Twin Otter production line. (Old news to some here I would think)
Why not the Caribou?
I am sure a the US would have found a modernised version (turboprop, Glass cockpit) useful in Afganistan. It would also be a popular buy for the RAAF.

 

[Volkodav]

I have read many times that the only replacement for the Caribou is a Caribou.
I was recently reading that Viking Air has aquired the rights to many DHC aircraft and has reopened the Twin Otter production line. (Old news to some here I would think)
Why not the Caribou?
I am sure a the US would have found a modernised version (turboprop, Glass cockpit) useful in Afganistan. It would also be a popular buy for the RAAF.

They have the rights to the Buffalo which is the turbo prop replacement for the Bou and one of the first options looked at to replace the Bou in RAAF service back in the late 70s. The Buffalo was offered to Canada for their SAR capability

 

[t68]

I have read many times that the only replacement for the Caribou is a Caribou.
I was recently reading that Viking Air has aquired the rights to many DHC aircraft and has reopened the Twin Otter production line. (Old news to some here I would think)
Why not the Caribou?
I am sure a the US would have found a modernised version (turboprop, Glass cockpit) useful in Afganistan. It would also be a popular buy for the RAAF.

Would be interesting to see how much a new build would be with modern avionics and so fourth, but V22 Osprey would be the ideal replacement it being shorter in both wingspan and length

 

[ADMk2]

I have read many times that the only replacement for the Caribou is a Caribou.
I was recently reading that Viking Air has aquired the rights to many DHC aircraft and has reopened the Twin Otter production line. (Old news to some here I would think)
Why not the Caribou?
I am sure a the US would have found a modernised version (turboprop, Glass cockpit) useful in Afganistan. It would also be a popular buy for the RAAF.

A Chinook is a pretty useful replacement for the Caribou. A V-22 would be an even better replacement.

Unfortunately we cannot afford more (or any in the case of V-22) of these aircraft so why would we be able to afford a Turbo Bou?

Curious.

 

[t68]

A Chinook is a pretty useful replacement for the Caribou. A V-22 would be an even better replacement.

Yes they are both the most logical choice for a direct replacement for the Bou, but what confuses me is how the RAAF manipulated the requirements for the replacement aircraft, yes it has increased range and payload at full capacity over the Bou, but it cannot do the STOL into the highlands of PNG and surrounding pacific countries which the Bou excelled.

Unfortunately the Bou could not fulfill its desired role in place of more modern and protected aircraft which routinely fly in Iraq/Afghanistan and the C-27J fills this need. But the Bou was much more than a STOL aircraft for Australia it provided assistance to these remote communities where vehicle access is nonexistence at a vastly cheaper rate than say Chinook and played a role in the South Pacific/Highlands where goodwill and waving the flag is at a premium.

Unfortunately we cannot afford more (or any in the case of V-22) of these aircraft so why would we be able to afford a Turbo Bou?

Curious.

But what it comes down to is which capability is needed the most, a modern turbo DHC-4 or C27J for 1.4 billion AUD well we now know 10 C-27J but what about a new DHC-4?

But in saying that with 7 CH-47F on order and if and it’s a big if we upgrade the remaining D’s we would still need the DHC-4 on aircraft availably alone (not running costs)

 

[ADMk2]

It seems to me that there's this lovely fond remembrance of the Caribou and what it could do, without actually bothering to understand what it is RAAF actually needs this aircraft for.

The Highlands of PNG? That is one very small part of RAAF's airlift mission. Is the Bou the best choice for the other 99% of RAAF's airlift mission, as our sole light tactical airlifter?

Okay fine, the Bou could land on incredibly short runways. That's about all it could do, besides fly backwards if the headwind was strong enough...

IMHO, a new Bou would see ADF lumbered with much lower airlift capacity than either a CH-47F or a C-27J will provide, much less STOL capability than a Chinook can provide and far less range, cruise speed and survivability than a C-27J affords you.

Some people then complain about the cost of the C-27J. Take a note of where the cost is in the C-27J. It's not in the basic airframe. It's in the mission systems. Does anyone really think these mission systems were only specified because they are "nice" to have or because they are essential to operate in modern combat environments?

Even if RAAF were to look at an upgraded Bou, we would be getting ourselves into a nightmarish development scenario attempting to add the mission systems from the C-27J onto the 1950's era Bou.

All to gain a STOL capability that is bettered by other options and a much inferior airlift capability...

Remember that when we operated the Bou we had a full 12 C-130H and 12 C-130J-30 Hercules to attend to our Tactical Airlift capability.

Now we only have the 12 C-130J-30's....

Without the C-27J's we would be very deficient in tactical airlift capability in my humble opinion.

:coffee

 

[t68]

It seems to me that there's this lovely fond remembrance of the Caribou and what it could do, without actually bothering to understand what it is RAAF actually needs this aircraft for.

I think there is a lot of fondness for a lot of equipment in the ADF past and present, Caribou, F-111, M113, series land rovers and the humble international F1 4x4 6x6 trucks bring back memories.

The Highlands of PNG? That is one very small part of RAAF's airlift mission. Is the Bou the best choice for the other 99% of RAAF's airlift mission, as our sole light tactical airlifter?

The work the Caribou achieved and the goodwill generated by the capability should not be belittled because it only generated a small percentage of the work performed for the RAAF at the time.

Okay fine, the Bou could land on incredibly short runways. That's about all it could do, besides fly backwards if the headwind was strong enough...

It’s interesting you see it that way, it was the CH-47C taken out of service back in the 80’s not Caribou but in fairness they have been looking for a Bou replacement since 76.

Some people then complain about the cost of the C-27J. Take a note of where the cost is in the C-27J. It's not in the basic airframe. It's in the mission systems. Does anyone really think these mission systems were only specified because they are "nice" to have or because they are essential to operate in modern combat environments?

No not complaining at all, if it’s all in relative to the capability needed. I haven’t heard of any CH-47 being used in the highlands since the demise of the Caribou.

Even if RAAF were to look at an upgraded Bou, we would be getting ourselves into a nightmarish development scenario attempting to add the mission systems from the C-27J onto the 1950's era Bou.

It didn’t stop Boeing from offering a modern AV-10 Bronco.

Remember that when we operated the Bou we had a full 12 C-130H and 12 C-130J-30 Hercules to attend to our Tactical Airlift capability.

And out of those 24 Hercules a portion would have been needed to form a strategic air bridge.

Now we only have the 12 C-130J-30's....

By retiring those 12x H models and replacing them with 6x C17 we have an extra 225,000KG in strategic/tactical lift.

Without the C-27J's we would be very deficient in tactical airlift capability in my humble opinion.

I personally don’t think there is a right or wrong answer on the issue, the decision to purchase C27J was a long and winding road which commenced in 1976 and in that time we have seen Chinook come and go and back again, but the difference with Chinook they have a readymade replacement to which the DHC-4 Caribou does not, does defence still needed the capability, yes I believe so but with C27J it’s the 80% solution when there is no 100% solution.

 

[ADMk2]

I think there is a lot of fondness for a lot of equipment in the ADF past and present, Caribou, F-111, M113, series land rovers and the humble international F1 4x4 6x6 trucks bring back memories.

And of them all, only the M113 has a future within ADF and arguably it should have been retired decades ago or at least planned for, along with the rest of them.

The work the Caribou achieved and the goodwill generated by the capability should not be belittled because it only generated a small percentage of the work performed for the RAAF at the time.

Caribou got the work from A to B. A C-27J would have as well in 99% of the instances the Bou could manage, but the difference with the modern capability is, it is capable of performing the modern warfighting role we actually have for this equipment, the Bou could not. As lovely as humanitarian missions may be, the ADF priority in acquiring equipment should ALWAYS be, combat capability first, additional non-combat capability second.

It’s interesting you see it that way, it was the CH-47C taken out of service back in the 80’s not Caribou but in fairness they have been looking for a Bou replacement since 76.

The CH-47C's were directly replaced in Squadron service by the S-70A9 Blackhawk, a more modern and survivable capability, something that should have happened to the Bou a LONG time before.

It was only a few months later however that Army realised the Blackhawk couldn't replace the Chinook and the 11 C's for 4 D's exchange took place and Chinooks were back in business in ADF.

I VERY much doubt this will be the fate of the C-27J...

No not complaining at all, if it’s all in relative to the capability needed. I haven’t heard of any CH-47 being used in the highlands since the demise of the Caribou.

Indeed, in fact I haven't heard of ANY RAAF or Army mission to the Highlands of PNG since the Bou retired.

Given this situation, it seems a rather odd argument to make, that some insist that the STOL capability of the Bou is so "essential" but other superior capabilities in all aspects of their capability (including the apparently "vital" STOL mission) are not considered so important.

It didn’t stop Boeing from offering a modern AV-10 Bronco.

For? As a Caribou replacement? Well I guess our old mate Goonie was in good company when he submitted his turbojet equipped Bou or whatever the hell it was, nonsensical proposal...

And out of those 24 Hercules a portion would have been needed to form a strategic air bridge.

Yes, but the fact remains we are lighter on numbers than we were. We can carry more, but to fewer places contemporaneously.

An upgraded Bou wouldn't address that issue. It would hinder it.

By retiring those 12x H models and replacing them with 6x C17 we have an extra 225,000KG in strategic/tactical lift.

Strategic. You can't have your cake and eat it too. The C-17A CAN stop in impressively short distances, for an airlifter carrying 70 tons...

I personally don’t think there is a right or wrong answer on the issue, the decision to purchase C27J was a long and winding road which commenced in 1976 and in that time we have seen Chinook come and go and back again, but the difference with Chinook they have a readymade replacement to which the DHC-4 Caribou does not, does defence still needed the capability, yes I believe so but with C27J it’s the 80% solution when there is no 100% solution.

There is a wrong answer and that is to be found in any solution that includes an upgraded 1950's aircraft.

The only benefit a Bou provides over any other modern airlifter is it's STOL capability. But that capability comes at the price of it's airlift capability being abysmal, compared to any other modern airlifter.

If one takes a pragmatic look at what we need airlift for with our modern defence force, the upgraded Bou option provides a nostalgic solution at best. It doesn't provide anything that is in the best interests of our DEFENCE force...

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The STOL mission for disaster relief into the PNG Highlands has been redundant for years. The local transport and aviation infrastructure in the PNG has gone ahead leaps and bounds over the past few decades. There are more and larger airfields and much more airlift capability indigenous to the area. This is thanks of course to large scale investment in mining.

There just isn’t the call for RAAF Bous to fly up to PNG (taking a couple of days to get there) to drop food supplies when local Kamov helicopters or in many cases trucks using roads would have already done the same mission. It’s the same for the RAAF disaster relief mission in rural Australia. Better roads and more availability of helicopters means you don’t need a Bou to airdrop food to cut off towns on the Murray Darling watershed during flood.

It’s not the 1980s anymore. On the other hand lean and just on time systems of management mean that when a disaster happens there is less on hand stock around the place to be distributed. So what is needed is emergency lift of bulk cargo into disaster areas. The emphasis now is on the movement of goods to distribution areas not the distribution. So bulk airlifters like C-17s and cargo ships are more important to move supplies into the area. There trucks using better roads and helicopters can distribute to everyone in need.