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

[vonnoobie]

Long range strike aircraft? What did you have in mind Vonnoobie?

Not actually much around that fit's this role, If we wanted something that we could implement tomorrow then I'd say the Panavia Tornado but by the time we get it it will be showing it's age more so then already.

Since it will take time to implement such a system and not much else is around the LRS-B is our only choice, A little pricey but gives us back the capability we lost with the F-111 and then some.

Just a thought.

 

[t68]

Long range strike aircraft?

LRSB
Ha!!

 

[Raven22]

Not how I meant it so please don't take it out of context.

I know what you meant and my point still stands. To say the RAAF and at the Navy is the front line is to view the defence of Australia as a set of concentric circles surrounding the coastline. This has never been the case. The entire military history of our nation is sending expeditionary forces abroad to secure the international status quo (and hence our own security and prosperity). That is what all those diggers in Timor, Iraq and Afghanistan were doing. That is still the way we intend to secure ourselves in the future (hence the acquisitions of the C-17, KC-30, LHD, LSD, LCHs etc that everyone here, rightly, applauds).

A lot of people fail to make the leap in logic, however, that there is little point in having a strategic projection capability if we can't actually achieve anything when we get there. There's little point, for instance, in spending tens of billions of dollars to develop the ability to make a forced entry on foreign shores (ie, the amphibious capability), if we lack the combat power to achieve decision when we get there.

That's where the lack of investment in Army starts to bight. It's not just combat capability either - it's all the other elements that contribute to providing capability to the nation. For instance, a key reason for buying C-17s, LHDs etc is for humanitarian assistance. We have an unmatched ability (in our region anyway) to get where we need to go to provide aid. Yet we have a markedly poor ability to help once we're there. There's obvious gaps such as the too-small helicopter fleet, but it's more obscure gaps that make the difference, such as a lack of bridging capability, ancient engineer plant, lack of deployable CSS, lack of amphibious vehicles etc. I recently belonged to a brigade that had exactly one working fuel truck - it wasn't allowed to leave the compound without the brigade commander's permission because it was a strategic capability.

The problem is it's very easy for a politician to point to a C-17 or an LHD and say 'buy some of those.' It's much harder to convince a politician to expend time and effort to purchase all the requirements of the combined arms team for army. It's not helped with sounds bites like 'the RAAF and Navy are the front line.'

 

[John Newman]

Not actually much around that fit's this role, If we wanted something that we could implement tomorrow then I'd say the Panavia Tornado but by the time we get it it will be showing it's age more so then already.

Since it will take time to implement such a system and not much else is around the LRS-B is our only choice, A little pricey but gives us back the capability we lost with the F-111 and then some.

Just a thought.

LRS-B a 'little' pricey? They will be more than a little pricey, the US is 'hoping' that they end up being procured for under US$550m each, good luck on that one!

Regardless, Australia will never go down the path of obtaining such an aircraft, that would certainly upset all the neighbours and would probably be the start of a fair dinkum arms race in our part of the world, no doubt about that!

Realistically if the Government does want a long range strike capability for the RAAF the only 'practical' option that I can think of is to acquire JASSM-ER (which has a bit over a 1000km range), to equip Super Hornets and eventually the F-35A's and back them up with as much tanker support as was needed, but then who in our 'immediate' region are we going to want to launch a JASSM-ER at? I can't think of any one, the days of confrontation with our near north neighbour are over, certainly for the foreseeable future.

The role the RAAF had for many years with the F-111C's being our long range deterrent are well and truly over, moving forward, ultimately it is going to be the RAN that will provide a long range deterrent and that will come in the form of submarine launched long range cruise missiles such as TLAM with its reported 1600km range (and to a lesser extent with the same missiles arming the AWD's and Future Frigates).

LRS-B (or clapped out Tornados)? Never going to happen!

 

[StingrayOZ]

The problem is it's very easy for a politician to point to a C-17 or an LHD and say 'buy some of those.' It's much harder to convince a politician to expend time and effort to purchase all the requirements of the combined arms team for army. It's not helped with sounds bites like 'the RAAF and Navy are the front line.'

To be fair, for a long time we had limited logistics capability. As volk said in the Aust army thread, we are no longer limited in what the army can choose, C-17 and LHD will move anything on the market (remember the crowing at the M1A1 purchase about tanks impossible to move and would crush every bridge, even in Australia). It would have been all M113 upgrades all over again if we didn't have new assets to move things. (as its the only thing light enough to move around in the 90's era ADF).

Personally I think the RAAF gets such a good run because:
- Typically there is one real best option (C-17, F-35) that suits Australia
- They can be purchased off a production line (they fit CONOPS and the unit number is fairly small - so apart from the F-35 we can just walk up and get what we want)
- They are in service with existing forces (UK and US).

It doesn't work as well for Navy or the Army.

Look at the Bushmasters, they had to fit into a C-130 because at the time thats all we had.

 

[Bluey 006]

LRS-B a 'little' pricey? They will be more than a little pricey, the US is 'hoping' that they end up being procured for under US$550m each, good luck on that one!

Regardless, Australia will never go down the path of obtaining such an aircraft, that would certainly upset all the neighbours and would probably be the start of a fair dinkum arms race in our part of the world, no doubt about that!

Realistically if the Government does want a long range strike capability for the RAAF the only 'practical' option that I can think of is to acquire JASSM-ER (which has a bit over a 1000km range), to equip Super Hornets and eventually the F-35A's and back them up with as much tanker support as was needed, but then who in our 'immediate' region are we going to want to launch a JASSM-ER at? I can't think of any one, the days of confrontation with our near north neighbour are over, certainly for the foreseeable future.

The role the RAAF had for many years with the F-111C's being our long range deterrent are well and truly over, moving forward, ultimately it is going to be the RAN that will provide a long range deterrent and that will come in the form of submarine launched long range cruise missiles such as TLAM with its reported 1600km range (and to a lesser extent with the same missiles arming the AWD's and Future Frigates).

LRS-B (or clapped out Tornados)? Never going to happen!

I agree with all of the above, the only thing I would add is that we may start looking at broad band stealth UCAVs in 10-20 or so years, which would give the RAAF a significant deep penetration strike capability, and thus a strategic deterrent. While different to the classic strategic deterrent (Bombers, ICBMs etc), swarms of small undetectable UCAVs capable of striking any target inside your borders would make you think twice, don't you think?

Also, as the RMA and our reliance on technologies continues, things like advanced cyber warfare capabilities will become strategic deterrents (they are already are). The future is now

 

[John Newman]

I agree with all of the above, the only thing I would add is that we may start looking at broad band stealth UCAVs in 10-20 or so years, which would give the RAAF a significant deep penetration strike capability, and thus a strategic deterrent. While different to the classic strategic deterrent (Bombers, ICBMs etc), swarms of small undetectable UCAVs capable of striking any target inside your borders would make you think twice, don't you think?

Also, as the RMA and our reliance on technologies continues, things like advanced cyber warfare capabilities will become strategic deterrents (they are already are). The future is now

Realistically I wouldn't be holding my breath about the RAAF acquiring armed 'stealth' UCAVs in the next 10 years, let alone the next 20 years or so.

It will all come down to where the US likely goes on that journey (I can't imagine that we would develop one ourselves or obtain such a capability from a source other than the US).

The only long range strategic deterrent that I can reasonably envisage for the ADF over the next 10, 20 or so years is appropriately armed submarines with a TLAM type capability (and also AWD's / Future Frigates), backed up by the current RAAF assets with long range strike weapons such as JASSM-ER supported by the appropriate level of tanker support to deliver a weapon such as JASSM-ER.

And I especially don't see Australia obtaining "swarms of small undetectable UCAVs capable of striking any target inside borders" either, my imagination doesn't quite stretch that far, not to say that such a thing isn't possible, just have a problem getting my head around that concept for Australia's strategic position at this stage.

To me it all comes down to need, do we need such capabilities? That of course is the question, and realistically who in our near neighbourhood are we going to need such a deterrent for?

Obviously the elephant in the room (or should I say Panda Bear), is China, if we do need a strategic deterrent in coming years it will probably be because of China and what it might (or might not) do in our region over the coming years, but I also think that China can achieve a lot of its objectives through 'economic warfare' and not actual warfare!

Am I being 'conservative' about the use of armed long range stealth UCAV's in ADF service? Maybe I am, maybe I'd just call it realistic!!

Not to say I don't see an increasing need and use of UAV's in general for ADF service, apart from existing experience and capabilities, I can see significant use of UAV's in coming years, Triton, armed Reapers, various forms of ship borne UAV's from small system and right up to Fire Scout type systems.

Anyway, interesting times ahead!

 

[Volkodav]

To be fair, for a long time we had limited logistics capability. As volk said in the Aust army thread, we are no longer limited in what the army can choose, C-17 and LHD will move anything on the market (remember the crowing at the M1A1 purchase about tanks impossible to move and would crush every bridge, even in Australia). It would have been all M113 upgrades all over again if we didn't have new assets to move things. (as its the only thing light enough to move around in the 90's era ADF).

Personally I think the RAAF gets such a good run because:
- Typically there is one real best option (C-17, F-35) that suits Australia
- They can be purchased off a production line (they fit CONOPS and the unit number is fairly small - so apart from the F-35 we can just walk up and get what we want)
- They are in service with existing forces (UK and US).

It doesn't work as well for Navy or the Army.

Look at the Bushmasters, they had to fit into a C-130 because at the time thats all we had.

The RAAF also tend to be much better at staff work it's a cultural thing due to them being the youngest service and the fact they were born just before the Great Depression and spent their first decades fighting for survival. Another factor is they are a very technically orientated service and there are far more support and staff postings than operational making them much better at staff work and articulating their needs. Its not really a case of them screwing the other services, rather they have a intricate understanding of air power but not of land or sea power and are much better at selling their requirements to the government and public than the other services.

 

[Raven22]

The RAAF also tend to be much better at staff work it's a cultural thing due to them being the youngest service and the fact they were born just before the Great Depression and spent their first decades fighting for survival. Another factor is they are a very technically orientated service and there are far more support and staff postings than operational making them much better at staff work and articulating their needs. Its not really a case of them screwing the other services, rather they have a intricate understanding of air power but not of land or sea power and are much better at selling their requirements to the government and public than the other services.

I don't know how much truth there is in that, at least any more. The recent big RAAF acquisitions - extra C17s, extra KC30s etc, came about with absolutely no staff work from the RAAF at all - it was driven by the politicians. They literally out of the blue told Defence to go buy more. On the other hand I could point out literally hundreds of capability needs documents for the army that use strategic guidance as justification (ie, the government says we must have certain capabilities in white papers, we don't, and yet they still don't fund it).

The biggest problem is the funnel at governmental level. There's limited time to put things in front of the decision makers, and the powers that be decide to put the big shiny things in front of them, rather than trying to get the politicians to understand the intricacies of, say, an armoured engineering capability.

 

[Volkodav]

I don't know how much truth there is in that, at least any more. The recent big RAAF acquisitions - extra C17s, extra KC30s etc, came about with absolutely no staff work from the RAAF at all - it was driven by the politicians. They literally out of the blue told Defence to go buy more. On the other hand I could point out literally hundreds of capability needs documents for the army that use strategic guidance as justification (ie, the government says we must have certain capabilities in white papers, we don't, and yet they still don't fund it).

The biggest problem is the funnel at governmental level. There's limited time to put things in front of the decision makers, and the powers that be decide to put the big shiny things in front of them, rather than trying to get the politicians to understand the intricacies of, say, an armoured engineering capability.

I was referring more to the comparatively question free acquisition of F-35A and the F/A-18F interim capability and Growler core combat capabilities while the Army still lacks an AIFV, has only 59 MBTs, no SPGs or rocket artillery, only seven CH-47Fs, was rolled on new Blackhawks, no dedicated CSAR capability and has insufficient helicopters in general. The Army requirements are far cheaper, much easier and less risky to source MOTS or even FMS and would have actually been useful and may have saved lives in recent operations, there was also that embarrassing moment when the PM promised an armoured brigade to support the US led operations against Sadam Hussein which I had hoped would prompt the formation of one as well as the procurement of sufficient equipment to support one.

Let me put it this way, when there are apparent gaps in capability identified in the RAAF they tend to get it filled, on occasion even if the RAAF isn't that concerned, while the army and RAN are left with those gaps for decades and have to learn to operate without certain capabilities.

It was not something I actually used to give much thought to until I started my masters where we were exposed to multiple case studies of defence procurement. The instructors for the T&E course where we covered this were retired army, RN and RAAF officers with extensive experience in OT&E, procurement and systems integration. I am just parroting what they taught, the RN bloke was pretty anti RAF, but the overall message was the importance of staff work as while professionals understand what they need to get their part of the job done amateurs (general public, politicians and even members of other services or corps) don't and an inability to communicate why a capability is required can easily result in that capability being delayed or even lost.

 

[t68]

I was not awere of the gaff by the then PM about an Amoured Brigade, but had heard that the USAF requested the RF-111C but was knocked back as we only had 4 of them and deemed to valuable to be put in harms way if we lost any.

 

[Goknub]

I wouldn't call it a gaff, more a sudden reality check that calling something a "Mechanised Brigade" and actually having a mechanised Brigade are two completely different things.

I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall when that reality was presented to the PM. I don't think it is a coincidence that we got M1A1s soon after. The Yanks made it look easy by matching quality personnel with quality gear and quality logistics. We had only the first of those.

----------

More broadly, the Army was the poor third cousin during the Defence of Australia years so it only made sense that it has struggled the most in the post-Cold War era. The RAAF has been in the lead for a while and has hit procurement gold with FMS buys. The RAN has also been in a good place and has plenty cash being thrown at it but the desire to produce ships locally will continue to be a millstone round its neck.
Every conflict we have been involved in has been overseas and an Army that can't get to the fight has no purpose. Realistically, only the US has had the logistics to sustain an invasion of Australia.

Plan Beersheba is really just getting it to the starting line, non-standardised Brigades have been the greatest drag on selling a coherent message to the policy makers. The procurement of C17s and LHDs has made the Army politically useful and saved it from being little more than a token force for use on ANZAC Day.

PS- This is heading in a "ADF General" direction.

 

[Volkodav]

We probably need to move this to the Australian Army thread but it is definitely worth discussing. To me it is clear that the army has been under funded, under equipped and under supported for decades, in part because they have always been able to step up and get the job done. In recent years the support side has improved out of sight, C-17, LHD etc. but there are still glaring shortages and holes that exist simply because of lack of funding, which is stupid when you consider how little money would be required to transform the order of battle and level of capability, less money infact than has been wasted through mismanagement and the selection (against advice of professionals) of inappropriate, inadequate or just plain incorrect equipment.

 

[Bluey 006]

Thought this may interest some of you.

RAAF DOGS FOR SALE BY TENDER
RAAF Base Amberley Security and Fire School has a number of male & female German/Belgian Shepherds for sale by Tender.
Some may suit Security work. No pedigree papers
Dogs are desexed, micro chipped and vaccinated.
Tenders may posted to MWD Training Flight, attn: Tender Board, or on the day of viewing. No online viewing option is currently available.
Enquires: 07 5361 3688
Viewing: Friday 10 Jul 15, 10 - 11:30 am at Military working Dog Supply Flight, RAAFSFS, Tarakan Rd, AMB 4306.
Offer Closing date: 4:00pm Wednesday 15 Jul 15

 

[old faithful]

Re the RAAF dogs, thanks for the heads up, we are currently looking for about 4 for our organisation, thanks again.

 

[Raven22]

Is it just me, or does it sound like old faithful is a henchman for an evil super villain...

 

[old faithful]

Is it just me, or does it sound like old faithful is a henchman for an evil super villain...

Lol!, no, where I work we have plenty of drug detection dogs, and only 2 working "bite" dogs.
We had a good relationship, MOU with another state dog training centre, but have recently had a falling out with them, the RAAF dogs might be a quick fix for our dog squad, or we may lose the capability if we are not carefull. Its an option.

You know the story, we put out a tender for a dog. People who dont understand, supply us with a cat. We explain that a cat wont do a dogs job.
Managment then hire a cat training consultant who trains the cat. Cat cant do the job, so they buy amsecond cat. After spending a truck load of money on the cat, they lower the standard or training so the cats can enter service. After making do with cats instead of dogs (to save money in the first place) they decide we dont need cats or dogs at all, and the skill set is lost....

 

[Volkodav]

Lol!, no, where I work we have plenty of drug detection dogs, and only 2 working "bite" dogs.
We had a good relationship, MOU with another state dog training centre, but have recently had a falling out with them, the RAAF dogs might be a quick fix for our dog squad, or we may lose the capability if we are not carefull. Its an option.

You know the story, we put out a tender for a dog. People who dont understand, supply us with a cat. We explain that a cat wont do a dogs job.
Managment then hire a cat training consultant who trains the cat. Cat cant do the job, so they buy amsecond cat. After spending a truck load of money on the cat, they lower the standard or training so the cats can enter service. After making do with cats instead of dogs (to save money in the first place) they decide we dont need cats or dogs at all, and the skill set is lost....

Dangerous stuff in that child care centre you work at.

Actually got a flyer in the letter box the other day about hiring drug detection dogs out to parents to see if their kids are hiding drugs, that would be great for trust and maintaining a good relationship.

 

[old faithful]

Lol, hiring them out!
What about the handler? Got to know the dog, how to read it, when its perving at another dogs scent, or food, when its a false indication, just so the dog gets his game (reward) , or if the dog is tired and sits because it dosnt want to work any more.
There is a bit more to it than lending or hiring it out.
Kids would be horrified when mum works their room with a dog!

 

[rand0m]

What the? When did we order the F35B??
http://defensetech.org/2015/07/10/australian-navy-cancels-order-for-the-f-35b-joint-strike-fighter/