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

[vonnoobie]

The situation has changed and is changing more and more especially when you factor in our main defence partner (America) is going through some very bad times with them even now thinking of extending the life of there ships to make up for short falls (Some to 53 years) and as Canada has shown that isn't a solid play to improve things but rather make them worse so we cant rely on the US and will have to do more our selves with the 2016 DWP is setting us on a path to be able to do so.

That said under the current planned budget any bomber force for Australia is purely hypothetical. We cant afford to cut anything else back as they are already limited in number as it is and what we could afford to cut back would make bugger all in savings. Any bomber force would have to come from an increase in the budget which I dont see happening. Further to that I dont see the US ever being open to selling Australia the LRSB so any bomber would have to be done from scratch and with that being the case it will never happen without it being a multinational effort with a combined fleet of hundreds.

All comes down to simple math, R&D for such a bomber.. very best case $10 billion (LRSB I have heard is meant to be around $20 billion? Will find the source). $10 billion across only an Australian force of 12 - 24.. $416 - $833 million per a bird in R&D alone, Build per each plane, Easily $250 million so already your at $666 million - $1.083 billion each bird.

So unless we can get a global order of around 200 this idea is already dead in the water.

My final 2 cents on this subject.

Regards, von_noobie

 

[t68]

The situation has changed and is changing more and more especially when you factor in our main defence partner (America) is going through some very bad times with them even now thinking of extending the life of there ships to make up for short falls (Some to 53 years) and as Canada has shown that isn't a solid play to improve things but rather make them worse so we cant rely on the US and will have to do more our selves with the 2016 DWP is setting us on a path to be able to do so.

Unless the situation changes dramatically over the next 10-15y the US will be playing second fiddle in the Pacific arena. it will be interesting to see how the US react to the post Trump era and the increasing deficit.

Extending the length of service for there ships is an indication that the US can no longer match the output generated by the Chinese for which it appears that the Chinese only wish to dominate Asia-pacific

That said under the current planned budget any bomber force for Australia is purely hypothetical.

Yes indeed, I believe the general reaction to the idea is in the same realm as nuclear submarines, which is why they have never been brought up as an integral part of our defence in the past as not to cause an arms race regionally, I believe with the increasing militarization should bring the debate into the open.

We cant afford to cut anything else back as they are already limited in number as it is and what we could afford to cut back would make bugger all in savings. Any bomber force would have to come from an increase in the budget which I dont see happening.

Agree, if an additional capability is desired then we have no option but to increase defence spending, any increase in the future will come down to Chines intent in the future

Further to that I dont see the US ever being open to selling Australia the LRSB so any bomber would have to be done from scratch and with that being the case it will never happen without it being a multinational effort with a combined fleet of hundreds.

Disagree, I have not yet seen any information where the US will restrict the sale of LRSB, at the moment it is the assumption that no other country needs or can afford such an undertaking, further more it was an act of congress in relation to Israel selling defence technology to china which lead to the Obey amendment not that of the US military willingness to sell to the F22 to allied nations

All comes down to simple math, R&D for such a bomber.. very best case $10 billion (LRSB I have heard is meant to be around $20 billion? Will find the source). $10 billion across only an Australian force of 12 - 24.. $416 - $833 million per a bird in R&D alone, Build per each plane, Easily $250 million so already your at $666 million - $1.083 billion each bird.

Not as simple as that, Australia should pay near to the same price that the USAF would pay for the aircraft at the time of production just like the case of the F35 we have paid more for the aircraft in early production runs, but if we had waited for the program to mature we would be procuring the aircraft at prices of the current production run, its a matter of priorities on when to get involved

So unless we can get a global order of around 200 this idea is already dead in the water.

last indications are that the USAF has a need for 165 aircraft, if the US builds all the aircraft the price per aircraft should remain stable.

Indications also say that its sized to be somewhere in-between the F111 and the B2 Sprit if it can operate in the long range maritime strike role I believe it should be seriously considered by the RAAF. I'm still in two minds in regards to it as its clearly a niche capability for the money we could increase other areas of capability which are the bare minimums



America's Lethal New B-21 vs. the B-2 Stealth Bomber


How the B-1 Bomber Could Sink an Aircraft Carrier (Any Anything Else at Sea)

 

[Massive]

That said under the current planned budget any bomber force for Australia is purely hypothetical.

I for one hope it remains hypothetical.

Very inflexible and hard to see how it fits into any foreseeable grand strategy for Australia.

Regards,

Massive

 

[hairyman]

Tornado isnt in production, but both Germany and Britain are working on seperate designs to replace the Tornado. I believe Germany is going with an updated and more powerful Eurofighter Not sure what the UK has in mind, maybe the Tempest? In any case Australia should be keeping an eye on developments in the interests of the RAAF.

 

[ASSAIL]

Tornado isnt in production, but both Germany and Britain are working on seperate designs to replace the Tornado. I believe Germany is going with an updated and more powerful Eurofighter Not sure what the UK has in mind, maybe the Tempest? In any case Australia should be keeping an eye on developments in the interests of the RAAF.

I can’t see any of the RAAFs interests being served by “keeping an eye” on what Germany and UK are doing in this sphere.
The European strategic situation is totally different to Australia’s area of interest and we can’t just pop next door to unload a bucket of misery on a threatening peer.
Those on here who recognise that have already dismissed the idea.
The ADF and in particular, the RAAF have a strategic plan, a way to the future and it doesn’t include this capability.

 

[StobieWan]

Tornado isnt in production, but both Germany and Britain are working on seperate designs to replace the Tornado. I believe Germany is going with an updated and more powerful Eurofighter Not sure what the UK has in mind, maybe the Tempest? In any case Australia should be keeping an eye on developments in the interests of the RAAF.

Well, last I heard, the German AF actually wanted the F35A as a Tornado replacement, it's the Government who want to use Tiffy so I'd personally discount that influence. France and Germany are looking at a joint program to replace Tiffy and HMG UK is touting their own Tempest.

I'm very dubious of either project bearing fruit that's not sloppy, smells a bit and is covered in mould.

 

[Joe Black]

Well, last I heard, the German AF actually wanted the F35A as a Tornado replacement, it's the Government who want to use Tiffy so I'd personally discount that influence. France and Germany are looking at a joint program to replace Tiffy and HMG UK is touting their own Tempest.

I'm very dubious of either project bearing fruit that's not sloppy, smells a bit and is covered in mould.

It begs to wonder if Northrop Grumman's YF-23 could have another life. With the existing design as a basis and updated with more current technology and components, would YF-23 potentially be a platform for the 6th Gen fighter?

I wonder how far BAE would take the Tempest. I see a potential a UK-Japan tie up for a Gen 5.5/6 platform.

 

[Massive]

France and Germany are looking at a joint program to replace Tiffy and HMG UK is touting their own Tempest.

I'm very dubious of either project bearing fruit that's not sloppy, smells a bit and is covered in mould.

Please no.

I can't see any issue with the current assets that have been chosen for the RAAF.

Surely more of the same would be a better approach with toying with any of the above?

Regards,

Massive

 

[hauritz]

If Australia is looking at a 6th gen solution I would be inclined to wait for the USN F/A-XX program. It could be worth hanging onto the superhornets and then replace both the Rhinos and Growlers in the mid 2030s.

 

[ngatimozart]

Let's not get a generation ahead of ourselves at the moment. The RAAF haven't even got the F-35 acclimatised to Australia yet let alone FOC and the Shornets will be around for a whiles yet. So it's best get the F-35 bedded in before heading off into flights of fantasy about further new 5+ or 6th generation strike aircraft. Keep it to some semblance of reality please people.

 

[Boagrius]

It may be a moot point anyway. According to F35 pilot Lt Col Christine Mau, the Lightning has better legs than the Mud Hen...(!)

(Go to 1:04.30 onwards)

EDIT: Add a variable bypass powerplant to the jet in 10-15 years times and you have yourself a potent fleet of 70-100 rather long legged, VLO strike aircraft with a suite of standoff PGMs to boot. That's without mentioning the KC30 fleet...

 

[FORBIN]

Mud Hen.. what is it ?

 

[Boagrius]

"Mud Hen" is an informal name for the F15E Strike Eagle. It's a bit like calling an A10 a "Hog", an F/A18F a "Rhino" or an F16 a "Viper".

 

[Redlands18]

"Mud Hen" is an informal name for the F15E Strike Eagle. It's a bit like calling an A10 a "Hog", an F/A18F a "Rhino" or an F16 a "Viper".

Probably a bit more degrading though.

 

[Boagrius]

Haha true. Perhaps more comparable to calling the F/A18 a "Bug" or F111 a "Pig". I've always thought "Mud Hen" was a term of endearment nonetheless..?

 

[pussertas]

Construction of New Joint Strike Fighter Maintenance Facility in Queensland

(Source: Australian Department of Defence; issued Aug 30, 2018)

TAE Aerospace will develop a Turbine Engine Maintenance Facility (TEMF) in Bundamba, south-east Queensland, which will support in-country sustainment of Australia’s fifth-generation F-35A Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) aircraft.

The TEMF will enable deeper-level maintenance, where JSF F135 engine modules are disassembled, repaired and reassembled for testing.

“TAE Aerospace’s new facility will support maintenance, repair, overhaul and upgrade (MRO&U) activities for not only Australian F135 engines but also engines from around the Asia-Pacific region and the world.

“TAE Aerospace is 100 per cent Australian-owned with 237 employees at several sites across Australia, with contracts to support Classic Hornet, Super Hornet, Growler and M1 Abram tank engines.

“The addition of the F135 engine MRO&U activities will add a minimum of 15 aerospace technician jobs to its workforce and up to 85 additional jobs as part of the future F-35 Global Support Solution.”

 

[Trackmaster]

Construction of New Joint Strike Fighter Maintenance Facility in Queensland

(Source: Australian Department of Defence; issued Aug 30, 2018)

TAE Aerospace will develop a Turbine Engine Maintenance Facility (TEMF) in Bundamba, south-east Queensland, which will support in-country sustainment of Australia’s fifth-generation F-35A Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) aircraft.

The TEMF will enable deeper-level maintenance, where JSF F135 engine modules are disassembled, repaired and reassembled for testing.

“TAE Aerospace’s new facility will support maintenance, repair, overhaul and upgrade (MRO&U) activities for not only Australian F135 engines but also engines from around the Asia-Pacific region and the world.

“TAE Aerospace is 100 per cent Australian-owned with 237 employees at several sites across Australia, with contracts to support Classic Hornet, Super Hornet, Growler and M1 Abram tank engines.

“The addition of the F135 engine MRO&U activities will add a minimum of 15 aerospace technician jobs to its workforce and up to 85 additional jobs as part of the future F-35 Global Support Solution.”

Interestingly, it's an old Masters hardware store that's being re-purposed.

They're taking the existing building and adding to it.

 

[Stampede]

It may be a moot point anyway. According to F35 pilot Lt Col Christine Mau, the Lightning has better legs than the Mud Hen...(!)

(Go to 1:04.30 onwards)

EDIT: Add a variable bypass powerplant to the jet in 10-15 years times and you have yourself a potent fleet of 70-100 rather long legged, VLO strike aircraft with a suite of standoff PGMs to boot. That's without mentioning the KC30 fleet...

It may be a moot point anyway. According to F35 pilot Lt Col Christine Mau, the Lightning has better legs than the Mud Hen...(!)

(Go to 1:04.30 onwards)

EDIT: Add a variable bypass powerplant to the jet in 10-15 years times and you have yourself a potent fleet of 70-100 rather long legged, VLO strike aircraft with a suite of standoff PGMs to boot. That's without mentioning the KC30 fleet...

Interesting that the helmet is tailored to the individual pilot.

Regards S

 

[SpazSinbad]

I have not watched the video referenced however I hope it is clear that the outer shell comes in several sizes that can be reused by other suitable pilots whilst an inner shell is fitted extremely carefully for an individual pilot - he/she might carry this inner shell to another helmet. There are several online sources that explain this if required. Necessarily because of the vHUD and HMDS the whole apparatus is tailored for the pilot for extreme accuracy when in use.

 

[SpazSinbad]

For whatever reason the previous downloadable PDF is no longer: Horizonsvol19issue2

However the two page PDF article inside is attached below from HORIZONS 2014 VOLUME 19 ISSUE 2. The PERFECT FIT Annette Busbee