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

[StevoJH]

Yeah, all of that, but in reality, ten thousand soldiers with state of the art rifles wont shoot down an enemy strike fighter flying at mach 1 towards Darwin, nither will the best 155.
Nothing can compare to DEFENCE of a large country with a small population better than state of the art fighter aircraft or purpose built maritime aircraft. Nothing can get spplies, or move troops faster than transport aircraft.
In short, as much as army and navy need great equipment, the Defence of our countries really relies on a sotar (state of the art) airforce, and their preference and priority of the defence budget is justified imo.

Especially an Island nation.

The one caveat of that though, is the need to keep the supply lines open, and to protect offshore infrastructure (esp. oil & gas).

Strong RAAF and RAN, enough of an Army to mop up whatever gets ashore, plus for any expected expeditionary operations.

 

[old faithful]

Dont get me wrong, I would love to see a strong Army, 3 beersheeba brigades, plus a QRF brigade of 3 bns, total of 9 RAR bns. Plus all the right gear, proper ICV, s recce vehicles, a full Armoured regt, sp arty, and all the other stuff, cutting edge, the lot.
Love to see the Navy with 4 AWD, 8 ANZAC and 9~12subs.

But, I also want a good medicare system, good education, and other infrastructure accross the board.

So, we will have to make do with an under strength defence force, and join in just about every US action, and let them be our real defence force.

 

[StevoJH]

Dont get me wrong, I would love to see a strong Army, 3 beersheeba brigades, plus a QRF brigade of 3 bns, total of 9 RAR bns. Plus all the right gear, proper ICV, s recce vehicles, a full Armoured regt, sp arty, and all the other stuff, cutting edge, the lot.
Love to see the Navy with 4 AWD, 8 ANZAC and 9~12subs.

But, I also want a good medicare system, good education, and other infrastructure accross the board.

So, we will have to make do with an under strength defence force, and join in just about every US action, and let them be our real defence force.

The other thing to remember is that Army equipment (as far as I am aware) has a much shorter lead time for procurement then Airforce and Navy equipment.

It also has a much lower capital cost, and the leadtime on training up an infantry solider (for example) is shorter then that for an engineer or pilot.

 

[John Fedup]

So, we will have to make do with an under strength defence force, and join in just about every US action, and let them be our real defence force.

Following such a strategy will lead you to where Canada is now with regards to national defence. You DON'T want that, especially considering the realities of your neighbourhood.

 

[Waylander]

And while it is quite right that a modern air forces comes a long way in protecting a large and sparsely populated island the day to day reality on the ground looks a bit different.

It's usually the army grunts which carry most of the burden and suffer most of the casualties in whichever foreign adventure is en vogue this week. That's the reality for most western countries out there.

 

[Raven22]

It also has a much lower capital cost, and the leadtime on training up an infantry solider (for example) is shorter then that for an engineer or pilot.

It may not take long to train a private soldier, but a bunch of trained privates doesn't make a capability. To have a true capability, it needs to be fully integrated into the combined arms team, with fully trained personnel of all ranks, and with everyone else being familiar with the capability so they know how to employ it.

This is something we have experienced in places like Afghanistan. Well meaning people buy equipment, give the soldiers the couple of hours long qualification course, deploy them into theatre, and wonder why they aren't using the equipment very well. Big surprise. You can't just develop a capability overnight. In this instance, army is no different to navy or air force.

The fact is, until the government gets as excited about, say, an armoured breach capability as they do about fighter jets or C17s, nothing much is going to change. Pretty much all the recent Air Force purchases had absolutely no paperwork to back them. No justification in a white paper, no capability needs document, just a thought bubble and signed cheque. There are literally hundreds of Army capabilities, based on strategic guidance in white papers etc, with fully developed needs statements that get no traction at all.

I think it's a but unfair to label the Army's lack of success in procurement as a failure of staff work. Perhaps it's simply too much staff work.

 

[Volkodav]

Probably more a case of the RAAF excelling at staff work and are able to commit more resources to it than the other services. Aviation requires a minimum overhead of engineering and technical management expertise that the other services just can't compete with, while they have very talented senior engineering and technical officers there just aren't as many of them. I mention this because it is this type of officer who explains and sells capability requirements to the layman politician, political adviser, or public servant.

I suppose you are right, it is too much staff work for the number of suitable officers available to do it.

 

[rand0m]

Is there any reason the Government/RAAF chose to send the Shortnets rather than the legacy hornets as they did in 2003?

I actually do feel for the guys/gals flying the legacy hornets at the moment, it seems to be the Shornets are getting all the limelight.

 

[CB90]

Is there any reason the Government/RAAF chose to send the Shortnets rather than the legacy hornets as they did in 2003?

I actually do feel for the guys/gals flying the legacy hornets at the moment, it seems to be the Shornets are getting all the limelight.

I'd guess range/payload being better suited to the type of work at hand, as well as long term airframe fatigue management.

 

[Tasman]

Is there any reason the Government/RAAF chose to send the Shortnets rather than the legacy hornets as they did in 2003?

I actually do feel for the guys/gals flying the legacy hornets at the moment, it seems to be the Shornets are getting all the limelight.

Ïf we going to send our aircrew in harm's way I'd rather see them in our most survivable platforms and that to me means the Shornet. As modernised the RAAF Hornets are still highly effective but the Supers are half a generation ahead and so are the best choice IMO.
Tas

 

[John Fedup]

Ïf we going to send our aircrew in harm's way I'd rather see them in our most survivable platforms and that to me means the Shornet. As modernised the RAAF Hornets are still highly effective but the Supers are half a generation ahead and so are the best choice IMO.
Tas

You can our politicians would be sending Shornets...if we had them!

 

[ADMk2]

Is there any reason the Government/RAAF chose to send the Shortnets rather than the legacy hornets as they did in 2003?

I actually do feel for the guys/gals flying the legacy hornets at the moment, it seems to be the Shornets are getting all the limelight.

They are our newest and most capable fighters, they don't have any fatigue issues and don't need to be managed through to their life of type.

This was obvious from about 2007 onwards, they will get the bulk of deployments and any Ops that come up until the F-35 comes online at least in IOC and likely FOC.

It might not be the perfect situation for the Hornet fighter groups, but relatively soon, they will be in the process of converting to F-35 so that situation will obviously change and be an exciting period.

 

[t68]

It makes more sence to me that If legacy hornets can operate in the airspace just as effectively as the Super Hornets without putting the crew at any more risk I would opt for the legacy planes to go, why burn thru flight hours and risk a new platform needlessly, if a plane is damaged in battle better to be the plane that's getting replaced anyway. We have more legacy planes than Super Hornets and will have them longer. If a Super is damaged beyond economic repair will the goverment replace it?

 

[Magoo]

I find it remarkable that anyone would think sending Classic Hornets instead of Supers is a valid alternative?

Surely it's a no-brainer to send the platform that has better sensors, better comms, better interoperability, a two-crew layout, more range, better flexibility, lower operating cost, better in-theatre support etc!?

 

[ADMk2]

It makes more sence to me that If legacy hornets can operate in the airspace just as effectively as the Super Hornets without putting the crew at any more risk I would opt for the legacy planes to go, why burn thru flight hours and risk a new platform needlessly, if a plane is damaged in battle better to be the plane that's getting replaced anyway. We have more legacy planes than Super Hornets and will have them longer. If a Super is damaged beyond economic repair will the goverment replace it?

Will they or CAN they replace a legacy Hornet? Can they replace the hours that will be burned through under normal Ops tempo on a fleet that is already rapidly approaching it's life of type, hence why it so urgently needs to be replaced?

As Magoo mentioned, why wouldn't you send your most capable asset? Your most survivable and most likely to achieve your mission?

If F-35 were available I'd fully expect it to be sent...

 

[protoplasm]

Just send your best, most survivable platform.

If you don't, and a lesser platform is lost, the immediate question of why didn't you send your best platform comes up.

You are left in the indefensible position of having put your people into harms way in something less than the best available platform.

 

[t68]

Will they or CAN they replace a legacy Hornet? Can they replace the hours that will be burned through under normal Ops tempo on a fleet that is already rapidly approaching it's life of type, hence why it so urgently needs to be replaced?

As Magoo mentioned, why wouldn't you send your most capable asset? Your most survivable and most likely to achieve your mission?

If F-35 were available I'd fully expect it to be sent...

So the legacy Hornets are that fragile that the only time we use them is break glass and push button and or only training aids now

Of course they won't replace a legacy hornet but we do have a fleet of 70 odd compared to the Super Hornets of 24, we have the next generation planes on order if their is no additional risk to the crew and they can operate in the area safely losing a legacy hornet whilst problematic is not the end of the world compared to the new aircraft with no guarantee of replacement

 

[old faithful]

So the legacy Hornets are that fragile that the only time we use them is break glass and push button and or only training aids now

Of course they won't replace a legacy hornet but we do have a fleet of 70 odd compared to the Super Hornets of 24, we have the next generation planes on order if their is no additional risk to the crew and they can operate in the area safely losing a legacy hornet whilst problematic is not the end of the world compared to the new aircraft with no guarantee of
replacement

Not at all.
The legacy hornets are still very very good.
But we are sending the best of what we have. We are making a small contribution at this stage, so what we send is quality, spec ops on the ground, to ah, advise .......wedgetail, MRRTT and the best FGA aircraft we have, as opposed to, A P3C, FA18A+,s and a retiring tanker as well as some ARES commando, s. ( no disrespect to 1CDO).

 

[t68]

Not at all.
The legacy hornets are still very very good.
But we are sending the best of what we have. We are making a small contribution at this stage, so what we send is quality, spec ops on the ground, to ah, advise .......wedgetail, MRRTT and the best FGA aircraft we have, as opposed to, A P3C, FA18A+,s and a retiring tanker as well as some ARES commando, s. ( no disrespect to 1CDO).

I am not saying its the right or wrong. All I am saying if their was no additional risk why not squeeze the juice out of the soon to be replaced aircraft and minimise the impact of the new equipment

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I am not saying its the right or wrong. All I am saying if their was no additional risk why not squeeze the juice out of the soon to be replaced aircraft and minimise the impact of the new equipment

Because the air force is not run like a transport company and the old fleet needs to be combat capable up until the day they are retired and are not ‘run into the ground’. The Super Hornet and No. 1 Squadron is the premier combination in the RAAF for air to ground operations. It has more capability and two onboard crew enables more ability to drop bombs in the face of restrictive rules of engagement. Also the unit has recently converted to type, brought up to a world class operational standard and is next in line for a chance to go do some live fire. The Hornet wing had their chance in OIF now its 82 Wing’s turn. Further Australia wants to shine in the international arena so we send the best when its needed. For their own safety and for our ability to contribute to such affairs. We didn’t send the F-111s to OIF, we didn’t send HMAS Swan and Torrens to ODS, we didn’t send 2nd Division, CMF to the VietNam War and so on.