peterAustralia
Member
you are more cynical than me
Royal Australian Air Force [RAAF] News, Discussions and Updates
5 a year might be a dry slow drumbeat. Maybe make it a 10 or 15 year project and do a base at a time so you get scale with the contractors.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #9,323
I believe I understand your POV, but I myself tend to disagree with it. As can be seen by looking back over centuries of warfare, there are opposing development/counter-development cycles for offensive and defensive warfare. Humans have been building fortified structures for literally thousands of years, and also developing new weapons and techniques for attacking or otherwise neutralizing those fortifications. A structure built to fortify or protect something vs. the weapons and threats of today, could very well be obsolete or irrelevant a century from now, or possibly even earlier. A HAS designed and built to hangar a RAAF fighter aircraft of today, might still be useful many decades from now as an aircraft hangar, OTOH the costs to maintain the structure could over time become prohibitive, which is realistically hard to predict due to the range of potential variables. Concrete or concrete & steel structures can and do decay over time, also such structures can shift and settle. Also, what is currently needed or desired in a fighter hangar might very well change over the coming decades, and possibly the desired internal layout. As a result of these possible issues, I would not be so quick to assume that a HAS built today or in the next decade or two would still be relevant and useful a hundred years from now or more.
There is also the threat matrix to consider. Who is the threat causing HAS to be ordered/built? What can this threat utilize to target and attack ADF installations with? With Australia being an island-continent with the closest neighbour being some 150 km away (closest point in PNG to Australian mainland) any potential attack is going to have to be using some sort of long-ranged, standoff weapon. Whilst long range drones might be a possibility, IMO a standoff strike using ship, sub, and/or air-launching LACM's would be far more likely. My personal suspicion is that Ukraine has been using some of these drones for longer ranged attacks because they lack long-ranged LACM's and/or the appropriate launching platforms.
From my POV it makes little sense to spend AUD $11 mil. per fighter-sized HAS to protect RAAF fighters in Australia from possible drone attacks if they are more likely to be attacked by something like Kh-101 missiles with 400 kg HE and/or penetrating warheads. As @Takao mentioned, additional HAS would be required if one wanted to not only protect RAAF fighters, but also have alternate and/or decoy HAS, as well as larger HAS (and therefore more expensive) to protect high value RAAF aircraft like the E-7's and P-8's. IMO it would make more sense to try and mitigate the more likely threats, especially if they are also more likely to be damaging if successful.
Wonder how many decoy F35s could be built with 11 million bucks, same dimensions, just mock ups. Maybe build 30 odd decoys, I'm sure a mock up wedgetail or 2 could also be built if need be.
[Hot Item] 2019 Most Popular Inflatable Aircraft Fighter
Blower: Have Power: 110V /220V Store Bag: Have Color: Choose Type: Cartoon Character Inflation Method: Air Circulation
caixinflatable.en.made-in-china.com
China has you covered. Infatable fighters for between $US1000 to $US2800. Actually it would be an interesting PSYOP. The Chinese government would know we bought 1000 mock-up fighters off them. Confuse them no end.
Last edited:
Maybe we could buy a few infantry brigades of inflatable dolls![Hot Item] 2019 Most Popular Inflatable Aircraft Fighter
Blower: Have Power: 110V /220V Store Bag: Have Color: Choose Type: Cartoon Character Inflation Method: Air Circulationcaixinflatable.en.made-in-china.com
China has you covered. Infatable fighters for between $US1000 to $US2800. Actually it would be an interesting PSYOP. The Chinese government would know we bought 1000 mock-up fighters off them. Confuse them no end.
Don't let them near officers or stokers then.
The stokers wouldn’t give up their teddy bears so easily.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
Potent $1.5 billion upgrade to Australia's maritime surveillance with manned and unmanned aircraft - ABC News
A 4th MQ-4 Triton UAV has been ordered for the RAAF as well as upgrades for the P-8 Poseidon to allow them to be armed with new missiles with a range of up to 1000ks. While the missile type is not named, it is almost certainly the AGM-158C LRASM, which is currently on order.
A 4th MQ-4 Triton UAV has been ordered for the RAAF as well as upgrades for the P-8 Poseidon to allow them to be armed with new missiles with a range of up to 1000ks. While the missile type is not named, it is almost certainly the AGM-158C LRASM, which is currently on order.
Possibly the JASSM-ER as well?
You’d imagine much of the aerodynamic testing would port straight across… Same weight, same outer mould line, largely equivalent weight distribution (you’d imagine) and likely similar G force constraints, same wiring and pylons you’d have to assume…
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
The USN is not a JASSM operator so Australia would have to integrate it into our P-8s ourselves, certainly we are capable of doing it but is the RAAF planning to use the P-8 for land strike, if so then maybe they might.
OldTex
Well-Known Member
The USN was reported in 2021 as requesting FY2022 budget funds for the introduction of the AGM-158B (JASSM_ER) to be used on F/A-18E/F and F-35C aircraft. So while not using them on P-8s, as these are to carry the LRASM (AGM-158C) for anti-shipping roles, the USN is supposedly a user. Of course the byzantine process for US defence funding may not have seen them ordered.
USN is indeed a JASSM-ER user. The AGM-158C-3 is a navalised variant of the AGM-158B2 JASSM-ER to be deployed by the USN.
U.S. Navy Comes Full Circle On JASSM Program | Aviation Week Network
After several cancellations over decades, the Navy’s revived interest in the Joint Air-to-Surface Missile family also reveals pursuit of more capabilities for it.
aviationweek.com
Last edited:
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #9,334
Read through the article and it indicated that whilst the AGM-158C-2 is in the works, it is not entirely clear which version of AGM-158 is its predecessor. The AGM-158B-2 for instance, had been known as the JASSM-XR, which featured a new wing to aid in reaching 'extreme' ranges out to ~1,000 n miles. The AGM-158C LRASM itself was a development from the AGM-158B JASSM-ER. The article did mention an AGM-158D, which adds a two-way datalink to an AGM-158B-2, but that does not match up with what I came across here on the Drive. The Drive article instead mentioned that the AGM-158D was a version of the AGM-158B which added a two-way datalink to enable engaging popup or moving/relocating targets.USN is indeed a JASSM-ER user. The AGM-158C-3 is a navalised variant of the AGM-158B2 JASSM-ER to be deployed by the USN.
U.S. Navy Comes Full Circle On JASSM Program | Aviation Week Network
After several cancellations over decades, the Navy’s revived interest in the Joint Air-to-Surface Missile family also reveals pursuit of more capabilities for it.
The comment made by Marcus Hellyer about the relatively small number of Tritons being acquired is probably a fair point. Potentially a very niche and expensive capability to maintain particularly with so many other expensive acquisitions competing for funding.
To be honest I would have preferred a few extra P8s
To be honest I would have preferred a few extra P8s
OldTex
Well-Known Member
The MQ-4C Triton has a different role to the P-8 Poseidon's primary role. The former is broad area maritime surveillance (hence its original name - BAMS) whilst the latter is anti-submarine warfare (true it also does maritime surveillance). The Triton has the endurance (reportedly >24 Hrs) while the Poseidon is limited by crew endurance (yes the P-8 can use AAR to extend flight time but that then requires another aircraft and crew). Really they are complementary systems rather than an either/or choice.
John Newman
The Bunker Group
100% correct.
Complementary systems, not either/or.
Too many people don’t understand the distinction.
John Newman
The Bunker Group
First the good news....
The current ALP Government has increased the order of MQ-4C from three to four (which still leaves the other planned 2-3 airframes still to be ordered).
Also the 14 x P-8A will be upgraded (not exactly new news, had been forecast for a number of years).
As a side bar, the USN had originally planned for approx 70 x MQ-4C.
The USN originally planned for five bases (five ‘orbits’ of MQ-4C) to operate from each base, each ‘orbit’ was to consist of 4 x MQ-4C each, 20 operational airframes in total (plus training and attrition).
This has now been reduced to three bases, with three ‘orbits’, eg, 12 x operational airframes.
seapowermagazine.org
Bottom line is the USN will now have a total of 27 airframes, 12 operational, and 15 training/attrition.
Back to the RAAF.....
Four airframes allows for one ‘orbit’, but doesn’t allow for training or attrition.
What happens to the other 2-3 airframes that have been planned and budgeted for??
If the RAAF is to follow the USN model, as I expect it had planned to, then those extra 2-3 airframes appear necessary to provide enough operational, training and attrition airframes for the many decades of service life ahead.
The bad news...
If those additional 2-3 airframes are not ordered, it signals yet another cut to the RAAF this year.
We’ve already seen a reduction in the replacement of C-130J-30 fleet.
The previous LNP Government was investigating a replacement fleet consisting of 24 x C-130J-30 and 6 x KC-130J.
By the time of the DSCA request, the ALP reduced the request to 24 x C-130J-30.
The Government subsequently confirmed 20 airframes on order (a reduction of 4 x C-130J-30 and the 6 x KC-130J never got off the ground).
And lastly the last batch of ‘up to’ an additional 28 x F-35A has been canned too.
Three projects, three cuts?
Am I surprised? No, not one tiny little bit.
We now wait for the RAN review, hmmmm.....
The current ALP Government has increased the order of MQ-4C from three to four (which still leaves the other planned 2-3 airframes still to be ordered).
Also the 14 x P-8A will be upgraded (not exactly new news, had been forecast for a number of years).
As a side bar, the USN had originally planned for approx 70 x MQ-4C.
The USN originally planned for five bases (five ‘orbits’ of MQ-4C) to operate from each base, each ‘orbit’ was to consist of 4 x MQ-4C each, 20 operational airframes in total (plus training and attrition).
This has now been reduced to three bases, with three ‘orbits’, eg, 12 x operational airframes.
Navy Scaling Back Planned Triton Deployable Sites from Five to Three - Seapower
***** ARLINGTON, Va. — The U.S. Navy is planning to reduce the number of planned deployment sites for its MQ-4C Triton high-altitude, long-endurance unmanned aerial vehicles in accordance with its planned reduction in the number of Tritons being procured. “FY24...
seapowermagazine.org
Bottom line is the USN will now have a total of 27 airframes, 12 operational, and 15 training/attrition.
Back to the RAAF.....
Four airframes allows for one ‘orbit’, but doesn’t allow for training or attrition.
What happens to the other 2-3 airframes that have been planned and budgeted for??
If the RAAF is to follow the USN model, as I expect it had planned to, then those extra 2-3 airframes appear necessary to provide enough operational, training and attrition airframes for the many decades of service life ahead.
The bad news...
If those additional 2-3 airframes are not ordered, it signals yet another cut to the RAAF this year.
We’ve already seen a reduction in the replacement of C-130J-30 fleet.
The previous LNP Government was investigating a replacement fleet consisting of 24 x C-130J-30 and 6 x KC-130J.
By the time of the DSCA request, the ALP reduced the request to 24 x C-130J-30.
The Government subsequently confirmed 20 airframes on order (a reduction of 4 x C-130J-30 and the 6 x KC-130J never got off the ground).
And lastly the last batch of ‘up to’ an additional 28 x F-35A has been canned too.
Three projects, three cuts?
Am I surprised? No, not one tiny little bit.
We now wait for the RAN review, hmmmm.....
WaveWalker
Member
Not doing what is speculated is not a cut.
The previous govt didn’t order the 2-3 extra Tritons, the current govt has increased the fleet by 25%.
Allegedly investigating buying 30 C130’s is not cutting. The current govt ordered 20 aircraft that were not on order before.
The previous govt didn’t order more F-35’s. The current government hasn’t either. So nothing has changed.
3 projects and 21 new aircraft is what I see. Not surprised at all.
The previous govt didn’t order the 2-3 extra Tritons, the current govt has increased the fleet by 25%.
Allegedly investigating buying 30 C130’s is not cutting. The current govt ordered 20 aircraft that were not on order before.
The previous govt didn’t order more F-35’s. The current government hasn’t either. So nothing has changed.
3 projects and 21 new aircraft is what I see. Not surprised at all.
The AGM-158B is the “original” JASSM-ER.
The JASSM-XR was a separate much larger missile that was canned in favour of the current AGM-158B2 JASSM-ER standard which features that large wing you mentioned. There was a time the USAF dropped that larger missile body idea and confusing called the smaller JASSM-ER the -XR, but originally it was a different much larger missile, not to be carried by fighters. But they scrapped that idea in whole as well as the -XR designation and settled on the AGM-158B2 which is now known as the AGM-158B2 JASSM-ER. This is the version the USAF and RAAF are currently buying. LRASM was developed from that weapon and designated the AGM-158C.
However be that as it may, the USN has now contracted to acquire a land attack capable weapon based on the JASSM-ER. It has incorporated elements of LRASM and into this weapon in order to provide dual land attack and ASuW in the one weapon system. I believe they are calling this weapon the LRASM AGM-158C-3. But confusing ly at it’s base it is a modified JASSM-ER, with LRASM components, not an LRASM base with JASSM-ER components. USN will be deploying this weapon alongside it’s existing LRASM variants, which is the standard I would advocate go onto RAAF P-8A as well, if the order book can be updated… Common weapon / lots of added flexibility…
AGM-158D is a new USAF weapon. It seems to be filling the “extreme range” requirement as well as the pop-up and relocatable target set you mentioned…