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

[OldTex]

Here is a pitch based on time to deliver capability for the Air Force. Air Power Offers Defence Value for Money | ADBR

Having read the article at least twice I can only say that the author seems to have completely ignored reality. He proposes that the Government expand air force infrastructure (i.e air bases), increase fleet size and increase manning as that provides the "best value for money for defence" without providing even guesstimates of the costs. He also fails to provide even guesstimates for how long it would take to expand the air bases, induct extra aircraft into the fleet and train the various manpower streams (i.e. aircrew, maintainers, logistics, support and command staff) needed for a larger air force. All of these questions need answers even before the questions of where does the money come from and where are the people to be found get asked.

How long did the 3 "bare" bases take to build?
How long would it take to upgrade them?
How would they be supported and supplied?

Naval vessels can reasonably hide in the ocean expanses once they leave port and army units can reasonably hide in the wide open lands, but the air force is tied to their bases and any opponent will know exactly where they are and target them accordingly.

 

[Bob53]

@OldTex …quote Naval vessels can reasonably hide in the ocean expanses once they leave port…..Not arguing here but is that really the case these days with satellite networks?

 

[Redlands18]

Having read the article at least twice I can only say that the author seems to have completely ignored reality. He proposes that the Government expand air force infrastructure (i.e air bases), increase fleet size and increase manning as that provides the "best value for money for defence" without providing even guesstimates of the costs. He also fails to provide even guesstimates for how long it would take to expand the air bases, induct extra aircraft into the fleet and train the various manpower streams (i.e. aircrew, maintainers, logistics, support and command staff) needed for a larger air force. All of these questions need answers even before the questions of where does the money come from and where are the people to be found get asked.

How long did the 3 "bare" bases take to build?
How long would it take to upgrade them?
How would they be supported and supplied?

Naval vessels can reasonably hide in the ocean expanses once they leave port and army units can reasonably hide in the wide open lands, but the air force is tied to their bases and any opponent will know exactly where they are and target them accordingly.

Weipa pop 3291
Derby pop 3325
Exmouth pop 2486

Major military bases rely on decent pop centres to support them. They require some skilled people from the local population for non-military related tasks such as electricians, plumbers etc. Also a good number of non-skilled people for Base support, kitchen workers, cleaners, grounds keepers etc... They require water and electricity supplies. The local population centres need to be able to provide this, Towns of 3000 simply are not up to the task. The only remote major Military base we have is Tindal and is just outside of Katherine (pop 21000) and just 3 hours by highway from Darwin.

 

[Aardvark144]

Weipa pop 3291
Derby pop 3325
Exmouth pop 2486

Major military bases rely on decent pop centres to support them. They require some skilled people from the local population for non-military related tasks such as electricians, plumbers etc. Also a good number of non-skilled people for Base support, kitchen workers, cleaners, grounds keepers etc... They require water and electricity supplies. The local population centres need to be able to provide this, Towns of 3000 simply are not up to the task. The only remote major Military base we have is Tindal and is just outside of Katherine (pop 21000) and just 3 hours by highway from Darwin.

Katherine population 21000? Perhaps more like 12000.

 

[Redlands18]

Katherine population 21000? Perhaps more like 12000.

Google search gave me 21,000 for the region, Bureau of statistics has the town at 10,500, still far better situated for a major military base than the other 3 and only 3 hours from a major port and international airport.

 

[ngatimozart]

@OldTex …quote Naval vessels can reasonably hide in the ocean expanses once they leave port…..Not arguing here but is that really the case these days with satellite networks?

They are mobile and can manoeuvre during an attack, plus they have to be found and real time target data provided - RAAF bases are fixed in space and their location is precisely known in both space and time.

 

[OldTex]

@OldTex …quote Naval vessels can reasonably hide in the ocean expanses once they leave port…..Not arguing here but is that really the case these days with satellite networks?

Granted it is much harder to hide a ship at sea now, but if the AIS is turned off then it becomes more time consuming to positively identify the ship. A similar thing happens when aircraft turn off their transponders and largely become invisible to ATC radars (usually secondary radars) and can only be located by primary radars.

 

[DDG38]

@OldTex …quote Naval vessels can reasonably hide in the ocean expanses once they leave port…..Not arguing here but is that really the case these days with satellite networks?

EMCON discipline and these things called clouds quickly mitigate satellite intercept. And the ocean is, well, really big.

 

[ASSAIL]

@OldTex …quote Naval vessels can reasonably hide in the ocean expanses once they leave port…..Not arguing here but is that really the case these days with satellite networks?

Locating and identifying vessels is not easy unless the oceans are empty, they are not.
Attached is a “Marine Traffic” view of seas n our region as of this am.
Sent from my MarineTraffic app for iOS

 

[seaspear]

In regard to airfields being fixed that is correct of course just like the ports are , both aircraft and ships though have to return to their bases for replenishment, there would be more backup fields for aircraft to return to if their primary one was out of service than with naval vessels if their ports were so, some of the members here with some knowledge of this may wish to comment but I could understand such contingency plans would not be discussed openly

 

[Takao]

Locating and identifying vessels is not easy unless the oceans are empty, they are not.
Attached is a “Marine Traffic” view of seas n our region as of this am.
Sent from my MarineTraffic app for iOSView attachment 49782

I'd argue that is a little disingenuous. The scale of that map means each of those ships is actually less than a pixel in size. And with a ship only seeing out 20 - 25 km at best; there is a lot of dead space to play in.

Having read the article at least twice I can only say that the author seems to have completely ignored reality. He proposes that the Government expand air force infrastructure (i.e air bases), increase fleet size and increase manning as that provides the "best value for money for defence" without providing even guesstimates of the costs. He also fails to provide even guesstimates for how long it would take to expand the air bases, induct extra aircraft into the fleet and train the various manpower streams (i.e. aircrew, maintainers, logistics, support and command staff) needed for a larger air force. All of these questions need answers even before the questions of where does the money come from and where are the people to be found get asked.

How long did the 3 "bare" bases take to build?
How long would it take to upgrade them?
How would they be supported and supplied?

Naval vessels can reasonably hide in the ocean expanses once they leave port and army units can reasonably hide in the wide open lands, but the air force is tied to their bases and any opponent will know exactly where they are and target them accordingly.

Yeah..... I mean, I know the author and he is a good bloke, but from memory has never held a Joint posting other than Staff College and isn't a logistics officer. It isn't quite ASPI levels of ignorance, but it's taking the most optimistic view possible.

As an aside, as someone who has been shown the KC-30A and P-8A production lines schedules and costs - anyone who flippantly throws off 'just buy more' can be 100% ignored.

 

[Volkodav]

I'd argue that is a little disingenuous. The scale of that map means each of those ships is actually less than a pixel in size. And with a ship only seeing out 20 - 25 km at best; there is a lot of dead space to play in.



Yeah..... I mean, I know the author and he is a good bloke, but from memory has never held a Joint posting other than Staff College and isn't a logistics officer. It isn't quite ASPI levels of ignorance, but it's taking the most optimistic view possible.

As an aside, as someone who has been shown the KC-30A and P-8A production lines schedules and costs - anyone who flippantly throws off 'just buy more' can be 100% ignored.

They appears to be a view that anything Australia has any engineering or production input into is doomed to failure, while anything from anywhere else is perfect. I think those people would be shocked to find out not just the great many Australian success stories, but also some of the monumental challenges the platforms they perceive as perfect have faced.

 

[ASSAIL]

I'd argue that is a little disingenuous. The scale of that map means each of those ships is actually less than a pixel in size. And with a ship only seeing out 20 - 25 km at best; there is a lot of dead space to play in.

Considering an average ISR search is well over 30,000sq nms it will cover many possible targets.
Just take the main traffic in and approaching the two main straits, Sunda and Lombok and theres15-20 targets in each at any one time. Add in local and fishing vessels and targeting becomes a complex process.
The point of showing traffic was simply to illustrate the totality of movement, the seas are not empty spaces where combatants stand out like the proverbial

 

[Lolcake]

https://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/military/us-air-force-to-deploy-nuclearcapable-b52-bombers-to-australia/news-story/dd7cc13dc270dbabb332cc200e279b7c

Looks like we will be basing B-52s out of Tindal.

 

[Aardvark144]

https://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/military/us-air-force-to-deploy-nuclearcapable-b52-bombers-to-australia/news-story/dd7cc13dc270dbabb332cc200e279b7c

Looks like we will be basing B-52s out of Tindal.

No disrespect but the Four Corners 'Investigation' is nothing short of a self serving beat up by the ABC. It is hardly new News. Anyone with a scant interest in Defence would be aware of the US Force Posture Initiative. A rudimentary look at Tindal via Google Earth and Google search for the 'RAAF Tindal Redevelopment' would provide all the answers. The Parliamentary Works Committee reported in 2020.

 

[Redlands18]

Project AIR 7404 Phase 1 - medium air mobility capabilty - Australian Defence Magazine
An article from ADM magazine on Air 7404 phase 1. ADM are claiming that Defence has identified the C-130J as the only option, just a matter of how many. The 2020 Defence Update identified the requirement for a larger fleet and there is the possibility of them replacing the C-27J as well. Numbers could be as high as 30 aircraft and possibly a KC-130 version as well.

 

[phreeky]

Numbers could be as high as 30 aircraft and possibly a KC-130 version as well.

Perhaps I missed prior discussion, but what would the KC version be used for? Is it suggestive of other purchases?

My initial thought is more C-130s means no more C-27, and KC-130 means making up the loss of C-27 with rotary/V-22 supported by AAR. Surely you don't buy KC-130 for Growlers and Supers.

 

[Redlands18]

Perhaps I missed prior discussion, but what would the KC version be used for? Is it suggestive of other purchases?

My initial thought is more C-130s means no more C-27, and KC-130 means making up the loss of C-27 with rotary/V-22 supported by AAR. Surely you don't buy KC-130 for Growlers and Supers.

Fitting re-fuelling probes to Chinooks and Blackhawks are always an option as well as future Rotary Wing aircraft. The KC upgrade makes no difference to the aircrafts lift capability, gives the ADF more options when planning future rotary wing purchases and it would only require a relatively modest increase in funding. We don't lose anything by buying, say 24 C-130J* and 6 KC-130J* over a straightforward buy of 30 C-130J*.

*Numbers are speculative and should not be taken literally.

 

[John Newman]

Fitting re-fuelling probes to Chinooks and Blackhawks are always an option as well as future Rotary Wing aircraft. The KC upgrade makes no difference to the aircrafts lift capability, gives the ADF more options when planning future rotary wing purchases and it would only require a relatively modest increase in funding. We don't lose anything by buying, say 24 C-130J* and 6 KC-130J* over a straightforward buy of 30 C-130J*.

*Numbers are speculative and should not be taken literally.

Actually that’s not a completely accurate statement.

The current RAAF C-130J aircraft are the ‘stretched’ C-130J-30 fuselage (a 15ft stretch from memory?).

And from memory the KC-130J is based on the standard length fuselage, not the stretched fuselage.

So.....

From a pure ‘trash hauling’ point of view a KC-130J has ‘less’ cargo capacity compared to a C-130J-30.

Not trying to be picky, just accurate, ok?

 

[Todjaeger]

Actually that’s not a completely accurate statement.

The current RAAF C-130J aircraft are the ‘stretched’ C-130J-30 fuselage (a 15ft stretch from memory?).

And from memory the KC-130J is based on the standard length fuselage, not the stretched fuselage.

So.....

From a pure ‘trash hauling’ point of view a KC-130J has ‘less’ cargo capacity compared to a C-130J-30.

Not trying to be picky, just accurate, ok?

It is actually a bit more complicated than that even. Here is the latest LockMart C-130J (& variants) brochure that I came across, it is about 32 pages.

The C-130J-30 is ~15 ft/4.6 m longer, so there is more volume available for cargo than a KC-130J, but it also has a higher empty weight and lower max cargo weight, albeit not by much (~300 lbs less).

Therefore, which Super Herc can carry 'more' depends on whether that 'more' is space or weight.

As an aside, it appears that there are variants of the aerial refueler that can provide a rapid ground refuel capability to support vehicles. That could open up some interesting opportunities for forward operating bases, expeditionary ops and potentially even HADR, in addition to the 'normal' support of fixed- and rotary-wing AAR.