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

[ADMk2]

I actually read an article about the possibility of using the P8A as a bomber.

Bomber Close Air Support for the Australian Defence Force? The Case for a Land Strike Capability for the P-8 Poseidon - SGT G.

It would be a very expensive asset to risk on a bombing mission even if it was retrofitted with the necessary equipment but in theory, it would be possible.

I think the asset is already at risk if you wish to use it for overland ISR roles and clearly Government and RAAF have been comfortable using it’s predecessor for such.

Given it will only be operating in permissive air environments in such a role and would be conducting medium - high level operations and employing precision weapons with standoff capability, I don’t think the risk is too great. It is over the battlefield already in these scenarios doing ISR work. Given it will use weapons with significant standoff ranges I don’t think adding a strike capability significantly adds to the threat it faces.

The real issue to my mind is getting the USN to run the weapons integration and software and hardware updates this proposal would require.

Just as with the Abrams tank re-engining issue, we certainly won’t be doing something like this alone...

 

[hairyman]

If we were to contemplate using P8's as bombers, we would need to acquire more of them. still capable of being used in the maritime role though. I would suggest another 8 to 12 would be required, A bombing mission using 2 or 3 aircraft would not provide much shock and awe.

 

[vonnoobie]

If we were to contemplate using P8's as bombers, we would need to acquire more of them. still capable of being used in the maritime role though. I would suggest another 8 to 12 would be required, A bombing mission using 2 or 3 aircraft would not provide much shock and awe.

While more would help as the 15 we plan will cover our maritime tasks I dont think 8 to 12 will be needed for the bomber role. Such a force would be on the heavy side and we arent there. 3 - 5 extra aircraft would be more then enough especially if all the P-8's went through such an upgrade allowing them to all perform both maritime and bomber roles.

 

[south]

If we were to contemplate using P8's as bombers, we would need to acquire more of them. still capable of being used in the maritime role though. I would suggest another 8 to 12 would be required, A bombing mission using 2 or 3 aircraft would not provide much shock and awe.

You’ve missed the intent. It isn’t to be providing a carpet bombing capability/shock and awe but to provide:

a) greater endurance in the AO (both fuel and weapons)
b) reduced sensor-shooter time, as now the sensor can be the shooter
c) reduced reliance on AAR.

Largely in a low risk AO, whilst already conducting its primary ISR role(I.e akin to an Okra/Afghan scenario).

Cant hurt for them to carry a brace of JDAM variants underwing.

 

[hairyman]

An extra three will bring us back to Orion original numbers, 18. Twenty a slight improvement. If you are only planning on using the P8 as a bomber one or two at a time, 18 or 20 would probably be sufficient.

 

[Volkodav]

I actually read an article about the possibility of using the P8A as a bomber.

Bomber Close Air Support for the Australian Defence Force? The Case for a Land Strike Capability for the P-8 Poseidon - SGT G.

It would be a very expensive asset to risk on a bombing mission even if it was retrofitted with the necessary equipment but in theory, it would be possible.

If used with PGMs from high altitude it's sensors, endurance and warload would make for a very capable loitering CAS asset in permissive environments. Look at how the B-1B was used over Afghanistan.

 

[Volkodav]

You’ve missed the intent. It isn’t to be providing a carpet bombing capability/shock and awe but to provide:

a) greater endurance in the AO (both fuel and weapons)
b) reduced sensor-shooter time, as now the sensor can be the shooter
c) reduced reliance on AAR.

Largely in a low risk AO, whilst already conducting its primary ISR role(I.e akin to an Okra/Afghan scenario).

Cant hurt for them to carry a brace of JDAM variants underwing.

I should have kept reading, sorry for doubling up on your reply.

 

[John Newman]

The real issue to my mind is getting the USN to run the weapons integration and software and hardware updates this proposal would require.

Just as with the Abrams tank re-engining issue, we certainly won’t be doing something like this alone...

Agree.

I can't really see the RAAF going too far out on it's own to integrate an orphan weapon system to the P-8A, from what I have read though, RAAF is having Harpoon Block 1G integrated to their airframes.

One potential future weapon could be JSM (I think JSM is certainly ahead of the pack to be integrated onto RAAF F-35A, as it certainly will with Norway's F-35A fleet).

And with Norway also going to be an operator of the P-8A, maybe there is the potential for a future fitment of JSM to both Australian and Norwegian aircraft.

 

[south]

Agree.

I can't really see the RAAF going too far out on it's own to integrate an orphan weapon system to the P-8A, from what I have read though, RAAF is having Harpoon Block 1G integrated to their airframes.

One potential future weapon could be JSM (I think JSM is certainly ahead of the pack to be integrated onto RAAF F-35A, as it certainly will with Norway's F-35A fleet).

And with Norway also going to be an operator of the P-8A, maybe there is the potential for a future fitment of JSM to both Australian and Norwegian aircraft.

Probably won’t be that big a deal for what we are discussing. If for example the P8 is modified to drop naval mines, like the skipjack JDAM, it will be a simple task to carry regular JDAM as well.

The bigger issues IMHO is that now you have issues such as where you can park the thing that’s carrying a whole bunch of explosive ordnance. There’s also the fact that it may get distracted from the primary role of watching and soaking up ‘trons.

The fact is as I’ve said many times before that there is great utility in working as pairs, as modern FGA do. Even if it’s just so that when you move out to distance to begin an attack run in that the other guy can maintain sensor sanitisation of the battle space, and maintain track of the bad guys.

 

[Stampede]

You’ve missed the intent. It isn’t to be providing a carpet bombing capability/shock and awe but to provide:

a) greater endurance in the AO (both fuel and weapons)
b) reduced sensor-shooter time, as now the sensor can be the shooter
c) reduced reliance on AAR.

Largely in a low risk AO, whilst already conducting its primary ISR role(I.e akin to an Okra/Afghan scenario).

Cant hurt for them to carry a brace of JDAM variants underwing.

Thanks for the comment.


While the P8-A should primarily be ASW ; it is too good a platform to be limited solely to this role.
For a professional medium sized air force like the RAAF asset flexibility is a must to solve complex situations .
I think there is a case for a P8-A conducting persistent or strike roles employed in a conducive environment. One aircraft versus 2 to 4 Hornets with Tanker maybe a good alternative...................................some of the time.......................and yes there is no perfect script.

I can also see in regional situations the RAN with the Canberra class providing local air support with rotary wing and UAV assets.Special forces groups backed up by Frigate fire support will certainly be in the mix.


The lessons of Iraq may have a lot of relevance transposed to our northern region.

Regards S

 

[Stampede]

Nice to see the Roulette's on display over Melbourne today.

Thanks and well done

Regards S

 

[SpazSinbad]

I know this excuse is like the dog ate my homework however a thunderstorm is approaching and I want to shutdown this computer toot sweet. The URL will take you (along with other embedded URLs to what I consider very interesting details about RAAF Fast Jet Training with different kinds of simulators with improvements to same in future, along with a comment about 'not networking sims' but having simulated entities in one sim. Gotta go - should be back online soon enough. Also have to read the other links in the article:

Hawk training gets a LIFT with new sims - Australian Defence Magazine

 

[SpazSinbad]

Cannot seem to edit my post above. Oh well what's new.... The F-35 FMS Full Mission Simulators at Willytown will likely be networked (probably with better bandwidth than that used with the networked Hornet sims but I would not know - just my guess). Interesting stats about percentage of training in the HAWK sims. Probably the RAAF will have initially 50% FMS for the F-35As. One day it is envisaged (in US anyways) that there will be VIRTUAL Red Flags with networked FMS between countries. Also the F-35 has/will have LVC Live Virtual Constructive software so that it will work much the same as the new HAWK sims. Quite a difference to my instrument sim trainer at Point Cook - the godawful LINK TRAINER. 1968

 

[t68]

interesting scenario to be played out with the Growlers going to Red Flag 18-1, apparently the USAF is advising of GPS blackouts across a wide area of the US.

its interesting as the article has an overview of the area when it last did it, I was surprised by the actual amount of area affected, but it got me thinking when they use the capability it should in theory also effect any blue forces operating in the area and how modern defence forces rely on satellite and GPS data, didn't really effect myself as I only had to rely on a paper map and compass. Would this have an effect on ground based ISTAR equipment?

USAF Begins Massive GPS Blackouts In The Western US During Largest Ever Air War Drill

 

[John Fedup]

I assume Russian, Chinese, and Euro GPS systems would also be blocked?

 

[swerve]

That would require active jamming of the signals. Switching off of Navstar GPS or exclusion of non-US military users (by the encoding of signals) can be done by the USAF wherever & whenever the US govt. wants, because the USAF controls the system.

 

[John Fedup]

That would require active jamming of the signals. Switching off of Navstar GPS or exclusion of non-US military users (by the encoding of signals) can be done by the USAF wherever & whenever the US govt. wants, because the USAF controls the system.

I was referring to non-USA navigation satellites.

 

[south]

I was referring to non-USA navigation satellites.

probably not. The Allied systems use GPS. The training is for allied nations - what is the point of jamming/denial of a system that isn’t used? Not going to provide any training benefit.

 

[swerve]

I was referring to non-USA navigation satellites.

Exactly. I know, & that's what "That would require active jamming of the signals" refers to. I was pointing out how much harder that is than selective switching out of users of US satellite signals.

And south makes a good point.

 

[rjtjrt]

Report RAAF Growler ran off runway at Nellis. Crew said to be OK in early report.

BREAKING: Plane crashes in Las Vegas - smoke rises above city