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

[Takao]

There are stats out there on the casualty rates of aircrew, the cost as well as the opportunity cost of the heavy bombers.

The stat that sticks with me is that Bomber Command's casualty rates are equal to the infantry of 1914-1918.

Which is particularly sad, because significant numbers of those veterans got their sons to sign up for the RAF to prevent the casulties they saw themselves.

 

[Volkodav]

The stat that sticks with me is that Bomber Command's casualty rates are equal to the infantry of 1914-1918.

Which is particularly sad, because significant numbers of those veterans got their sons to sign up for the RAF to prevent the casulties they saw themselves.

Another fact I recall was at the height of the Battle of the Atlantic where the UK was in serious danger of running out of some critical war materiel, fuel, food etc. Coastal Command requested the transfer of just two squadrons of heavy bombers to support Mid Atlantic ASW operations and Harris refused.

These aircraft were ideally suited for the long range ASW mission and would have made a real difference.

Something I find interesting about Harris was in his days as a senior officer policing the empire he was a strong believer in combined arms, this was because he was the senior officer and had operational control over the army units involved in the said operations. Once the army was given the lead he became a proponent of terror bombing against civilians as this didn't require the army at all.

 

[Volkodav]

A case could be made against him but Nazis justice would be making a case against most allied colleagues as well. All would be potential trouble in the future.

The test is what would a reasonable person think when given the unbiased facts. Not all Germans or even German leaders were war criminals, in fact, not all SS units were guilty of war crimes. That does not, for one second excuse those who did and were.

 

[John Fedup]

The test is what would a reasonable person think when given the unbiased facts. Not all Germans or even German leaders were war criminals, in fact, not all SS units were guilty of war crimes. That does not, for one second excuse those who did and were.

My comment referred to likely actions by the Nazis had they won the war. Agree, not all German military leaders were war criminals but many of the civilian leaders were and most didn’t face justice.

 

[John Fedup]

Sorry @John Fedup , I wouldn't. I'd barely recommend that book for kindling. I mean, any book that says you need tailwinds to help heavy laden aircraft take off is going to tweak my aeronautical engineer brain and his ignorance of the RAF tweaks my historian brain, but it's quite wrong on many, many levels. I see it as trying to overlay the modern worlds fetish with 'tech bros' like Musk with a situation that is significantly complicated and more complex than most realise.

While this review and this review provide some of the healthy, thematic arguments against it, my absolute favourite is this twitter thread because of the sheer snark levels....

It is a money book but the discussion on the Norden bomb sight and B-29 development was interesting. Pretty much ignored the moral debate on precision versus carpet bombing. The number of bombs required to hit a target once settled the argument so mass bombing was LeMay and Harris’s MO. The latter probably had a greater payback motive. Despite allied bombing, German war production maxed out in 1944, an observation some would claim proves the failure of the campaign. Pretty sure without the campaign war production would have been much higher.

 

[Volkodav]

(Heavy breathing) I find your lack of faith disturbing Volvo.
Plus the small thing about your lack of understanding of air power.
Plus, plus, I always credited a joint approach over empire building.
Plus, plus, plus, are our SSN not going to be busy fighting PLAN?
Plus, …. Range/Payload old bean!

I love aircraft and airpower, that's why I read so much on it, that's why I chose some jobs I later regretted choosing, it involved working with things that fly.

Airpower is a bit like a religion, a sort of cultish religion where its members invent their own facts to fit desired outcomes rather than letting the observed effects and data speak for themselves. They have the hot chicks (pointy grey flying things) to attract the young guys, then indoctrinate them to their evil cultish ways.

Someone like me arrives (primarily because of the hot chicks) but then I listen, really listen, and ask questions, then I realise it's a cult and run while I can, warning as many others as I can on the way out.

I have read a lot, an awful lot, because I love stuff that does stuff, I'm interested in how it works, how it was developed, what the alternatives where. Then I look into why a certain capability was selected over another, then when that doesn't make sense, I look at what would have influenced such a decision.

A common factor is air forces tend to have extremely talented and capable staff officers, individuals who have an almost evangelical belief and conviction in what they are selling. They are the only service that historically has believed they can do it all on their own, this is changing, possibly a maturity thing and many very good "purple" officers are now from the light blue service.

The fact is no service can do it all alone, the bomber does not always get through, it will not always survive to refuel and rearm to fly another mission. The tank will not always survive, the poor Light Infantryman more than likely wont. In wars ships and submarines get sunk, the RAN had two subs in 1914 and none by the end of the war.

Air power is of critical importance, but not primary importance. No single service is.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Curious since you are unsatisfied with the:
NH90
Spartan C27J a
Tiger
Why not selling them in a package to Ukraine financed by the EU? With a good discount.

If the EU financed them, then I think AU would happilly seem them go to a willing home. Not sure if Ukraine is that willing home, even the Ukrainians understand the issues of things don't work if there are no parts for them. Any operational tempo of the Tiger for example would likely easily consume the entire EU logistics spares in days. Then they would have a capable system, not doing much waiting on logistics from France/Germany.

Of course there are countries within the EU that have these platforms that are also unhappy that could also donate them and would have stronger lobbying power within the EU.

Norway ends contract for NH90 helicopters, wants full refund

NHIndustries has called the Norwegian termination of the contract “legally groundless.”

www.defensenews.com

Buy European, CEO of Airbus Helicopters urges military leaders

The head of Airbus Helicopters has urged Europe to back its domestic defence industry when launching major new military programmes, as a row simmers over U.S. arms imports.

www.reuters.com

Australia has a fairly tense relationship with the EU. While most people might assume Australia, a modern free democratic, liberal economy with high wages and social support, and long and many cultural ties with Europe, would be an easy relationship, they have been dead locked in trade negotiations for nearly two decades.

Australia closer to a free trade pact with EU but minister warns there won’t be a deal ‘for the sake of it’

Negotiators make progress in Canberra but thorny issue of geographical indicators is believed to remain a sticking point

www.theguardian.com

I would say Australia-EU defence and economic relationship would be "its complicated".

Plenty of support for Ukraine. Australia has plenty of views on what Europe could do. If the EU asked, for AU support in such a program, there would be Australian support. But as we have seen, the EU has plenty of issues giving its own European equipment even from EU member states desperate to hand on usable and suitable gear (IMO not sure C27/NH90/Tiger is good fit for Ukraine, Poland might be interested tho).

There’s only really been one war where strategic bombing (what I assume you are inferring by tactical vs strategic AirPower) has been unleashed, that being WWII. Where it has been assessed as being a decisive factor in the defeat of Germany. In fact, it set the key precondition for the invasion - air superiority (amongst others, such as dislocation of the landing areas through then dismembering of the rail network).

Quoting to add to the origional discussion.

Not sure Australia solely and unilaterally bombing modern China is going to be effective as to what happened to Germany, particularly later in the war.

Australian strategic bombing is unlikely to be anything like the bombing of Germany or Japan during WW2 or like Vietnam. We never had that kind of resources to unleash. Australian strategic bombing runs would be more like Operation Black Buck during the Falkland's. But within context, the RAAF has never had the kind of bombing capability that the RAF had, and its a similar distance (ascension to Falklands) against a way, way, way more powerful adversary.

Choosing to Fight 1980 Argentina or 2030 China, I know which one I would choose every day of the week.

There are stats out there on the casualty rates of aircrew, the cost as well as the opportunity cost of the heavy bombers.

One would think against a big peer state with very modern air defenses, even with modern bombers, the stats would be significant. You couldn't do it these days unless total air supremacy which included depleting the entire opposing airforce and ground based units. If you loose 6 bombers, that is a huge portion of your bomber fleet these days, no body, not even the US could shrug that off. . Even in Vietnam, losses were significant losing even on highly capable strategic platforms like B-52's and F-111's.

 

[Gooey]

Volkodav, my regrets for posting in hast and being a bit waspy. Your comments are always well worth reading, interesting, and considered. Oh yes, in many ways being Air is a bit of a religious experience. A potent combination of Lord Flash-heart, Battle of Britain, and youthful arrogance.

For most of your good points there is a Yes, But, ... and WWII Area Bombing is particularly vexed. In my opinion, after many arguments, Harris did what his nation needed doing at that time. After Dunkirk and until 6 June 1944, Bomber Command was it for the Empires offensive strategy if sadly let down by technology (1941 Butt Report "... the proportion of the total sorties which reached within 5 miles is less than one-third." Butt Report - Wikipedia). Total war is not pretty and our Combined Bomber Offensive was no exemption. In finality, if the choice is between surrendering to Nazis and bombing their cities it really is no argument. Whilst the policy was (allegedly) widely supported by the Blitz survivors, Churchill dropped Harris and his boys like a hot potato by the wars end.

As Dan Hampton recently said ('Viper Pilot' Dan "Two Dogs" Hampton - Wikipedia), you will not win by air, but you will loose if you do not control air.

For me that is the same argument for why VLR air provides Joint continental defence of Australia with superior range/speed/payload options, which are 'bombers' inherent flexibility over other forms of attack. For us primarily maritime strike, but a wide range of other missions too at many times optimistic AAR FJ AGM radius; ala the RAAF Black-Cat and B-24 missions of WWII.

 

[seaspear]

The argument about strategic bombers is they would be targeting land based targets , would it not be more effective for them to target naval platforms ,Billy Mitchell certainly showed the value of this ,I believe more naval platforms were destroyed by aircraft than opposing naval platforms in WW2 ,the argument for more ships with bigger V.L.S capacity is similar in some ways to the argument from navies persuing battleships with large caliber guns for WW2 and ignoring the risk from above . Certainly there were hard lessons learnt in WW2 about lack of air cover and the danger of bombers
Prince of Wales and Repulse: Churchill’s “Veiled Threat” Reconsidered - International Churchill Society (winstonchurchill.org)

 

[Volkodav]

The argument about strategic bombers is they would be targeting land based targets , would it not be more effective for them to target naval platforms ,Billy Mitchell certainly showed the value of this ,I believe more naval platforms were destroyed by aircraft than opposing naval platforms in WW2 ,the argument for more ships with bigger V.L.S capacity is similar in some ways to the argument from navies persuing battleships with large caliber guns for WW2 and ignoring the risk from above . Certainly there were hard lessons learnt in WW2 about lack of air cover and the danger of bombers
Prince of Wales and Repulse: Churchill’s “Veiled Threat” Reconsidered - International Churchill Society (winstonchurchill.org)

Billy Mitchell believed in level bombing, the secret to anti-ship operations was torpedoes and dive bombing usually with much smaller tactical types although there were a number of successful torpedo bombing medium types. Later rockets, low altitude skip bombing and then guided missiles became the solution. The fear was heavy bombers with nuclear payloads would destroy entire fleets, however the increased performance of carrier based aircraft made this a suicide mission, then there was the development of the surface to air missiles. Early Terrier and Seaslug etc. struggled with small agile targets, especialy at low level, but were design specifically to deal with high altitude nuclear bombers.

 

[Lolcake]

Attrition replacement Growler delivered to RAAF | ADBR

A new Boeing EA-18G Growler has been delivered to RAAF Amberley, boosting availability and returning the RAAF’s electronic attack aircraft fleet to a full complement. The aircraft was acquired as…

adbr.com.au

Growler numbers have been replenished. They will also be upgraded to block II standard in line with US.

 

[seaspear]

Billy Mitchell believed in level bombing, the secret to anti-ship operations was torpedoes and dive bombing usually with much smaller tactical types although there were a number of successful torpedo bombing medium types. Later rockets, low altitude skip bombing and then guided missiles became the solution. The fear was heavy bombers with nuclear payloads would destroy entire fleets, however the increased performance of carrier based aircraft made this a suicide mission, then there was the development of the surface to air missiles. Early Terrier and Seaslug etc. struggled with small agile targets, especialy at low level, but were design specifically to deal with high altitude nuclear bombers.

Certainly the changing times have increased the capabilities of aircraft and the missiles carried for use against naval ships ,aircraft are easily able to launch their missiles from significant distance perhaps before detection at least from the ships and engagement range of carriers aircraft
China's New Aircraft Carrier Killer Is World's Largest Air-Launched Missile - Naval News
Russia claims first use of hypersonic Kinzhal missile in Ukraine - BBC News

 

[ADMk2]

There is no chance of this happening. Super hornet production is to cease in 2025. At best existing fleet gets upgraded to Block III std to extend airframe life.

Super Hornet production is to cease, because of a lack of orders, which obviously wouldn’t be the case, should RAAF order more…

But I suspect RAAF would sooner order more F-35 and wait longer for them, than order more Super Hornets, no matter how quickly they could be delivered…

 

[StingrayOZ]

Super Hornet production is to cease, because of a lack of orders, which obviously wouldn’t be the case, should RAAF order more…

But I suspect RAAF would sooner order more F-35 and wait longer for them, than order more Super Hornets, no matter how quickly they could be delivered…

An advantage of the Superhornet is that ordering and deliveries could happen very quickly. So if we wanted to stand up some capability very quickly Superhornet offers a near empty order line. It is dual engine. It also may be easier to dispose of regionally, to US non-allies. It is also twin engine and integrated with all our weapons. I wonder if they might be based permanently out of Butterworth. An F-35 order could be placed, and perhaps a FDPA friend could take on some of the SH in 2030's.

But F-35 acquisitions are a bit frantic at the moment, and there would also be TR3/blk IV upgrades. The F-35 seems to be delivering. But does the RAAF feel that more F-35 might shut out a 6th gen platform in the medium future, in say the 2030's. We also have UAV's and what that means for the force mix in the future.

 

[Redlands18]

An advantage of the Superhornet is that ordering and deliveries could happen very quickly. So if we wanted to stand up some capability very quickly Superhornet offers a near empty order line. It is dual engine. It also may be easier to dispose of regionally, to US non-allies. It is also twin engine and integrated with all our weapons. I wonder if they might be based permanently out of Butterworth. An F-35 order could be placed, and perhaps a FDPA friend could take on some of the SH in 2030's.

But F-35 acquisitions are a bit frantic at the moment, and there would also be TR3/blk IV upgrades. The F-35 seems to be delivering. But does the RAAF feel that more F-35 might shut out a 6th gen platform in the medium future, in say the 2030's. We also have UAV's and what that means for the force mix in the future.

The only reason you would get more Super Hornets now, would be to form a 6th fast Jet Sqn ASAP and that would not be an easy undertaking. You have to find a home for the Sqn, build the facilities, increase the trg tempo for all air and ground crew, right across the board. Find the extra personnel required for non-aviation related jobs. You could reduce the trg requirements by getting E models with no back seater required. It seems to be a lot of effort for an aircraft that will be increasingly obsolete by 2040.

 

[seaspear]

One lifeline for the Super Hornet could be India if it wins the competition for a carrier aircraft ,its up against Rafale which India is currently producing with France
Will the Indian Navy extend the production of the F/A-18 Super Hornet? - AeroTime

 

[Stampede]

An advantage of the Superhornet is that ordering and deliveries could happen very quickly. So if we wanted to stand up some capability very quickly Superhornet offers a near empty order line. It is dual engine. It also may be easier to dispose of regionally, to US non-allies. It is also twin engine and integrated with all our weapons. I wonder if they might be based permanently out of Butterworth. An F-35 order could be placed, and perhaps a FDPA friend could take on some of the SH in 2030's.

But F-35 acquisitions are a bit frantic at the moment, and there would also be TR3/blk IV upgrades. The F-35 seems to be delivering. But does the RAAF feel that more F-35 might shut out a 6th gen platform in the medium future, in say the 2030's. We also have UAV's and what that means for the force mix in the future.

It was interesting looking at the Ghost bat on display at the Avalon Air show.
As one of the exhibitors kept saying it was the first time it was on show to the public.
While he was understandably very disciplined with his answers, two thing stood out.

One, his comment that one Piloted aircraft could be supported with up to four Ghost bats.
Two, the size of the Ghost bat..............Its big.

Most of the language around this platform is in "Defencese" which translates to a lot of words not saying very much; but realistically looking at this platform in the flesh, its very difficult to believe this aircraft or its evolution will not be more than a sensor platform, but rather a Bomb / weapons truck.

No ones saying it, but I think we can join the dots together on this one!

Will the RAAF get more F35's or S Hornets, I'll leave that to the DSR.
Certainly merit in all scenarios.

What will happen I'd suspect is there will be a lot of development of the Ghost bat going forward.

The RAAF composition will look very different in the years ahead.



Cheers S

 

[Takao]

The argument about strategic bombers is they would be targeting land based targets

Noting the 20 year anniversary of the Iraq invasion was recently, it actually raised an astounding story that, honestly, begs real questions about the purchase of any long range strike assets.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1637490720008294402

50 airstrikes planned against Saddam Hussein and other key Iraqi officials, none successful. This despite a 12 year period of unprecedented ISR, including no fly zones, regular inspections and significant knowledge. Also the recipient of the bulk of US and UK intelligence capability, if not other nations.

Noting we couldn't begin to get half of that intelligence against any likely threat, how on earth will we target all this long range stuff? And note the civilian casualty count - can Australia stomach that? Command and control targets are legitimate military targets, but when you keep missing?

 

[Takao]

Two, the size of the Ghost bat..............Its big.

So many people forget this as they rush to make drones the answer. If you want something that can keep up with a F-35 in terms of range, stealth, and speed - it's going to be similar in size to a F-35. As cool as DJI's carrying grenades over Ukraine is, if you want serious performance you need serious kit. Which leads to the second point, something that can match the F-35 for speed/range/stealth is going to cost....close to an F-35. These things are not as cheap as many think. Which leads to the third point. Something that can match an F-35 for range/speed/stealth is going to have maintenance demands....similar to an F-35.

The removal of crew does make some design easier (I promise, the best thing about helicopters is ignoring on-board oxygen generation - oxygen sucks...), but some physics remain. You want a 'Loyal Wingman UUV' to work with Collins? It's going to be similar in size, cost and maintenance. A 'Loyal Wingman UAFV' to work with an M1? It'll be similar.

Also, all these drones still need maintenance and logistic support - from a system point of view there is no workforce savings, the workforce just shifts from frontline to support. That's really good from one point of view, less bodies exposed to fire, but it forces the Force to become more technical. Which is fine for the RAN and RAAF, but it'll hurt the ARA.

Drones are orders of magnitude more complex than 90% of commentators believe. Getting Loyal Wingman out into the public eye will hopefully start educating some of these peeps.

 

[DDG38]

1 additional point to Takao's excellent post above, and that's comms and comms infrastructure. Piloting a drone at long distances requires significant bandwidth, transmission infrastructure and associated technical staff (and a pilot). And once you have a consistent beam transmission, it can be intercepted, analysed and potentially disrupted. So lots to consider before we enter a brave new world of unmanned combat aircraft.